Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Bombay Baroda and Central India Railway Bill.

Mid-Wessex Water Bill.

Bills Committed.

COMMITTEE ON UNOPPOSED BILLS.

Ordered,
That, if at any time the Chairman of Ways and Means is of opinion that in order to facilitate the progress of the Bills then referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills under Standing Order 111 the adoption of such a course is desirable, he may apportion the Bills between two Committees on Unopposed Bills, the composition and quorum of each being those prescribed by Standing Order 111 as modified by this Order, and each Committee shall have the assistance of the Counsel to Mr. Speaker, and all the Standing Orders applying to the Committee on Unopposed Bills shall apply to each Committee.

Ordered,
That the Chairman of Ways and Means have power to select from the panel appointed under Standing Order 111 one Member to act as Chairman at every meeting of a Committee on Unopposed Bills at which neither the Chairman of Ways and Means nor the Deputy Chairman is present, and at any such meeting the Member so selected shall be a Member of the Committee in addition to the three Members mentioned in Standing Order 111.

Ordered,
That during the present Session the Committee of Selection have power to add to the panel appointed under Standing Order 111."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

COMMITTEES ON OPPOSED BILLS CONTAINING LOCAL LEGISLATION CLAUSES.

Ordered,
That in the case of an Opposed Bill promoted by a municipal or other local authority containing clauses by which it is proposed to create powers relating to Police, Sanitary and

other Local Government matters in conflict with, deviation from, or excess of the provisions of the general law, the Committee to which the Bill is referred shall, when considering such clauses as aforesaid, have the assistance of the Counsel to Mr. Speaker."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

CLOTHES RATIONING.

Mr. Daggar: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is prepared, in view of the representation made to his Department and the dissatisfaction that exists amongst various voluntary organisations whose members knit woollen articles for members of His Majesty's Forces, to revert to the practice of allowing these bodies to obtain wool coupon-free from the firms they choose; and distribute the articles made as they deem appropriate?

The President of the Bayard of Trade (Colonel Llewellin.): No, Sir. I am afraid I cannot adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion. Permission for voluntary organisations wishing to knit for members of His Majesty's Forces to obtain coupon-free wool and distribute the comforts at their discretion would involve unfair distribution and waste of wool.

Mr. Daggar: Does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman see that there will be a considerable decrease in the number of these articles unless he agrees to revert to the old practice; and what is there to encourage an individual in area "A" to knit these articles if they are distributed in area "B" where no such articles are being produced at all?

Colonel Llewellin: I am afraid that if we dispersed the wool and did not distribute it through these organisations which arrange it carefully for us, we should have a lot of people accepting wool and perhaps using it for other purposes.

Mr. Daggar: That does not meet the point I have in mind. Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman expect persons, say in Wales, to knit articles and allow them to be distributed in areas where no knitting at all has been done? I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Adjournment.

Commander King-Hall: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give favourable consideration to a scheme whereby for a period of 12 months persons with a gross income of £1,000 a year and upwards shall receive no clothing coupons, thereby both economising in the consumption of clothing and applying more strictly the principle of equality of sacrifice?

Colonel Llewellin: No, Sir. The object of the Clothing Ration Scheme is to provide fair shares of available supplies for all consumers irrespective of income, and I see no reason to depart from this principle.

Commander King-Hall: Does not my right hon. and gallant Friend feel that people who have either existing wardrobes or can buy second-hand clothes should be obliged to wear out their existing stocks before they use clothing coupons?

Colonel Llewellin: I should like to see people who have existing wardrobes not using their coupons, but that is no reason why one should say that everybody who has an income of over £1,000 a year must necessarily have a sufficient wardrobe.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Would not the logical application of this principle be to compel all people with gross incomes of over £5,000 a year to go naked?

RETAILERS (CONCENTRATION OF INDUSTRY).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, arising out of the Second Interim Report issued by the Retail Trade Committee of the Board of Trade, which has now been published, and the proposal whereby the committee are to tour the country to meet the retailers locally, and as the cost of this work is to be borne by the Government, he will give some particulars of the plan and give an assurance that no undue persuasion will be brought to bear on the independent retailers in the rural districts with the object of obtaining their consent to a scheme of absorption or compensation?

Colonel Llewellin: The setting-up of this committee by one of my predecessors was, I believe, generally welcome, and I think that it is best to allow the committee to carry out their difficult task in the way they deem best.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the extension of this compensation idea must inevitably lead to control being in very few hands, and does he realise the danger of having control in a very few hands; and may I pay a warm tribute to his predecessor, who did so much to try and get this matter in the right perspective?

Colonel Llewellin: In dealing with these retailers, the fact which we really have to face is that, unfortunately, they will, by and large, only get about 25 per cent. of the stocks to sell that they previously had, and something, I am afraid, will have to be done.

Mr. De la Bère: But should the large interests be allowed to dominate the small?

Major Lyons: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that the small traders are being driven out of business altogether?

SOAP (EXPORT TO SPAIN).

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Economic Warfare why 500 tons of soap were allowed to be sold, in December, to Spain by British firms at a time when shortage of soap here was about to make rationing necessary?

Colonel Llewellin: I have been asked to reply. No licences have been granted for exports of soap to Spain for some months, but if my hon. Friend has any information he would like me to consider I will be glad to do so if he will send me particulars.

Mr. Parker: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the reports in the American Press of a quantity of soap being sent from this country to Spain?

Colonel Llewellin: As I have said, no licences have been issued for the export of soap to Spain for several months.

GOVERNMENT STOCKS (INSURANCE).

Sir Richard Acland: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will terminate the arrangement whereby large Government stocks are now insured by private insurance companies, in view of the fact that America's entry into the war has invalidated the agreement which was held to justify the departure from pre-war practice?

Colonel Llewellin: I have been asked to reply. In my view the reasons for this arrangement are not affected by America's


entry into the war, and I am unable to accept my hon. Friend's suggestion that it should be terminated.

Sir R. Acland: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend tell us any way in which the public gains by this expenditure of money, time and effort?

Colonel Llewellin: It gains because it keeps in being these large insurance companies which mean so much to us in invisible exports.

Sir R. Acland: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

COUPONS (PROSECUTION).

Mr. Thorne: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give any information about the 60,000 coupons forged by Jack Coen, of Cotswauld Terrace, Salford, and seven others charged at Manchester police court, on Saturday, 7th February, with stealing the coupons; and whether Coen had printing machines at his house?

Colonel Llewellin: The defendants have been charged with being in possession of documents so closely resembling clothing coupons as to be likely to deceive and have been remanded. The case is therefore still sub judice.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC WARFARE.

GREECE (FOOD SUPPLIES).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Economic Warfare whether he will consider allowing further supplies of foodstuffs adequate for the necessity to be exported to and distributed amongst our Greek Allies?

The Minister of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dalton): The question of further relief for Greece is being considered by His Majesty's Government, but I cannot at present add anything to my statement of 27th January.

Sir T. Moore: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 25,000 tons of food monthly is a minimum amount of foodstuffs to be distributed to these gallant and heroic people, who are reported to be dying off at the rate of 500 a day in Athens, and can he not devise some method whereby this amount of food could be increased?

Mr. Dalton: We are most anxious to do whatever we can consistently with maintaining pressure upon the enemy and making sure that food intended for our gallant Allies is not taken by those against whom we are fighting in this war. In spite of representations made through the International Red Cross, I am sorry to say we have not yet received safe conduct from the two enemy Powers for the first shipment.

Sir T. Moore: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, even were our enemies to seize this amount, it would be infinitesimal for the requirements of Germany, and would it not be wise to take the risk of shipment?

CO-OPERATION WITH UNITED STATES.

Mr. Hammersley: asked the Minister of Economic Warfare whether, in reference to cargoes to and from the United States of America, he has been able to arrange a simplification of the navicerts system?

Mr. Ernest Evans: asked the Minister of Economic Warfare whether he has any further statement to make in regard to co-ordination of effort in economic warfare between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States of America?

Mr. Dalton: I am glad to say that the United States Embassy in London is now directly represented, not only on our Black List Committee, but also on our Blockade Committee, which now combines the functions of the former Contraband and Enemy Export Committees. His Majesty's Embassy in Washington is now similarly represented on the appropriate United States Economic Warfare Committees.
As regards the Financial Blockade, there has been the fullest co-operation between our two Governments ever since the issue of the United States Freezing Regulations last July, and such co-operation has become even closer since the United States entry into the war.
No change is contemplated in the Navicert system except for United States exports to destinations in the Navicert area. Cargoes sent to the United States from within the Navicert area must still be covered by a Certificate of Origin or Export Pass, and every ship must still obtain


a Ship Navicert at its last port of call before leaving the area.
But as regards cargoes originating in the United States and consigned to any destination within the Navicert area, navicerts will not be required in future. The necessary control will be secured through the United States export licensing system. Ship navicerts will no longer be issued at United States ports, but masters must obtain a certificate, which will be issued on similar conditions, from the United States Collector of Customs. This new arrangement will serve the same purpose as the Navicert system, namely, to prevent cargoes from reaching undesirable or suspect consignees, and to keep the imports of neutral countries in the Navicert area within the permitted quotas. These quotas will be jointly determined and administered in London through the Blockade Committee, on which, as I have said, the United States Government now has full representation. The United States Board of Economic Warfare will issue United States export licences. In the case of exports to destinations within the Navicert area the Board will, before issuing licences, consult my Ministry, who will advise on quotas and the reliability of consignees. The United States Government are sending additional representatives to London to assist the Ambassador in dealing with Economic Warfare matters. I should like to say how much I welcome this latest development in the collaboration of our two Governments, which now covers the whole field of Economic Warfare.

Mr. Hammersley: While thanking my right hon. Friend for the satisfactory answer, may I inquire whether, either directly or in conjunction with the United States, he is going to make representations with a view to improving the navicerts systems in the South American Republics?

Mr. Dalton: We have naturally kept that under review though I would not admit that it is markedly unsatisfactory.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the Minister mean that no more American cargoes will be despatched to the Vichy Government?

Mr. Dalton: No Sir, it has no direct bearing on that very important question.

Mr. Shinwell: Has the Minister nothing to say about the despatch of shipments to the Vichy Government?

Mr. Dalton: I shall have something to say if my hon. Friend puts down a Question in the ordinary way. I am answering the Question on the Paper.

ENEMY OCCUPIED COUNTRIES, EUROPE (STARVATION).

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: asked the Minister of Economic Warfare whether he has any official information about deaths from starvation in German-controlled Europe?

Mr. Dalton: As I stated last week, the worst conditions in German-controlled Europe prevail in Greece, in some parts of Poland, and in occupied Russia. While I should not be prepared to say what proportion of the death rate is due to lack of food, there can be no doubt that deaths from starvation are occurring in these territories. In other occupied countries, reports do not indicate any deaths directly attributable to food shortage, though in Belgium and Occupied France, some part of the increase in the mortality of certain diseases, notably pneumonia, is probably due to insufficient nutrition. In Norway, the Netherlands and Czechoslovakia the diet, though well below pre-war standards, has not been so inadequate as to cause any marked increase in the death-rate.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

LECTURE, BRIGHTON (TRANSPORT OF OFFICERS).

Wing-Commander Wright: asked the Secretary of State for War how many special trains were used to convey officers of South-Eastern Command to a lecture at the Savoy Cinema, Brighton, on 31st January; what was the approximate cost to the public, including trains, petrol for cars, officers detention allowances, hire of cinema, etc.; and whether, as nothing was said that could not have been conveyed to the officers concerned, in writing, he will give instructions that transport facilities are not wasted in future?

The Secretary of State for War (Captain Margesson): Six special trains were used to bring officers to this lecture, and the total expenses incurred were approximately £3,000. It is not the case that nothing was said that could not have been conveyed to the officers in writing, and in view of the special circumstances of this lecture I cannot agree that transport facilities were wasted.

Wing Commander Wright: Am I to understand that my right hon. and gallant Friend agrees to the policy at the present stage of withdrawing no fewer than 3,000 officers from their units in a vitally important defence area and congregating them in one hall in a very vulnerable town?

Captain Margesson: The number of officers brought to the lecture by special trains was about 1,466. The lecture was such that I think it was well justified for these officers to go there and hear personally from the General of his recent experiences and the lessons to be learned from them.

Sir William Davison: Would it not have been possible for the lecture to have been given at several different times at several different places?

SPECTACLES (OVERSEAS SUPPLIES).

Sir Robert Young: asked the Secretary of State for War what arrangements exist for supplying or replacing spectacles to men serving abroad; and whether he is aware that complaints have come to hand regretting non-delivery of such necessary help covering many months?

Captain Margesson: In theatres of war where adequate trade facilities do not exist for the supply and replacement of spectacles for soldiers, military optical centres have been established with all the necessary equipment. Some delay in the supply of frames and lenses has occurred in the past owing to enemy action, but ample stocks have now either reached their destinations or are on their way.

EX-SERVICE MEN (BADGE).

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the cases of ex-Service men who have served overseas during the present conflict and subsequently been discharged on medical grounds, who are receiving white feathers as, not being in receipt of a pension, they have no distinguishing badge to wear with civilian clothes and, in particular, the case of ex-Driver A. V. Burtenshaw, late Royal Army Service Corps, a shoemaker, who was discharged for heart trouble after Dunkirk and has received a number of such emblems, which is having a serious effect on his means of livelihood; and whether he will reconsider his decision not to issue the "Services Rendered" badge to those ex-Service men who,

although not physically fit, volunteered and were accepted for service overseas and subsequently discharged on medical grounds?

Mr. Palmer: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will reconsider the decision not to award silver badges for services rendered to personnel who have been invalided from the Army since September, 1939, but whose disability is not attributable; and whether he will make it clear that the issue of such a badge does not, in itself, involve a liability on the Government to grant a pension?

Captain Margesson: Mr. Burtenshaw's disability was considered to be constitutional and not connected in any way with his military service. He is therefore not eligible for the Kin's Badge under the existing rules. I do not consider that any alteration in these rules is desirable. Everybody is now liable to be compelled to undertake some form of national service and I think the badge should be kept as a special distinction for those who have suffered as a result of a disability which is directly due to their military service.

Mr. Bellenger: Is the Minister not aware that there is another class which has also suffered, and doubly suffered, because they have not been given a pension? Is it not a small thing to grant such a distinction like this to those who have served their country?

Captain Margesson: Everybody is serving his country in some way.

Mr. Bellenger: Is the Minister's decision in this matter irrevocable?

Captain Margesson: I see no reason to alter it.

Mr. Bellenger: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the first opportunity.

MISSING MEN (TRACING).

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the British Red Cross Society is responsible to the War Office for tracing wounded and missing in hospitals, or whether the War Office has any machinery of its own to deal with this matter?

Captain Margesson: The duty of tracing missing military personal is the responsibility


of the War Office. Full details of the Army organisation by which this function is performed are contained in the answer given to my hon. Friend on 19th December last. A panel of voluntary workers organised by the War Organisation of the British Red Cross Society carries out inquiries among patients in military hospitals in this country with a view to collecting information about missing men with whom the patients may have been in contact in the field. This work, for which we are most grateful, is done at the request of the War Office, to whom reports are rendered.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: Is it not the case that the War Office have handed over this work to the British Red Cross Society, who are doing it very badly? Is it not, therefore, the responsibility of the War Office to see that the work is done properly?

Captain Margesson: I am not aware that it is being done poorly. As I have said, we have our own organisation to deal with this matter, which is supplemented by voluntary work.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: Is it not the case that the officer responsible for this work resigned?

HOME GUARD (APPLICATIONS REFUSED).

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that ex-Lance-Corporal Willis, who was discharged from the Army with a high character, made an application to join the Home Guard; that he was visited by two members of the Criminal Investigation Department, who warned him against making such application; on whose responsibility this visit was made; and why ex-Lance-Corporal Willis and ex-Corporal Mick Bennett, also discharged from the Army with a high character, were refused admission to the Home Guard?

Captain Margesson: I have no information about the visit alleged to have been made by two members of the Criminal Investigation Department to Mr. E. H. Willis. As the hon. Member is aware, full inquiries have been made into the cases of both Mr. Willis and Mr. Bennett. I am satisfied that the decision not to accept their application to join the Home Guard was taken in the best interests of the service.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that there has been no complaint against the character of either of these men, and that the only reason for their dismissal and the refusal to take them into the Home Guard is prejudice on the part of some of the reactionaries at the War Office, who are more concerned with political servility than they are with military efficiency?

Captain Margesson: I do not accept that for a moment. The Army must reserve the right to refuse to accept the services of men whom they do not consider to be suitable for the Army.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case—

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Mr. Gallacher: I beg to give notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply and the conduct of the military chiefs, I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

GRATUITIES, 1914–1918.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War what were the rates of gratuity granted to officers and other ranks at the termination of the Great War, 1914–18?

Captain Margesson: As the answer is rather long and contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

1. Regular Officers.

Gratuities were awarded on the basis of a minimum for each rank for the first year of service with monthly increments for additional service. The total service which could reckon for gratuity was limited for five years.

The minimum rates were as follow:



£


2nd Lieutenant
35


Lieutenant
40


Captain
45


Major
60


Lieutenant-Colonel
75


Colonel
100


Brigadier-General
140


Major-General
200


Lieutenant-General
370


General
540


Field-Marshal
720

The monthly increments were:—

£1 for officers up to Lieutenant-Colonel.
£2 for Colonel or Brigadier-General.
£3 for Major-General and above.

If with no service overseas the monthly increments were half the above figures.

2. Retired officers, Supplementary Reserve and Territorial Force, and other non-regular Officers.

(a) Officers who had retired with retired pay or gratuity, 31 days' pay for every year of service or any part of a year.
(b) Other officers, 124 days' pay for the first year or part of a year and 62 days' pay for each subsequent year or part of a year.

3. The rank for gratuity purposes in paragraphs 1 and 2 above was that held on 3rd August, 1919 (or 11th November, 1918, if more advantageous) with the concession that paid acting rank could be taken if:

(i) held for 6 months in all and not relinquished on account of misconduct, etc., or
(ii) the acting rank was relinquished owing to wounds, or
(iii) the officer became non-effective owing to wounds, etc., incurred while holding the acting rank.

4. The main war gratuity for soldiers of all ranks was as follows:

(a)Personnel eligible.—Soldiers with war service overseas, or with more than 6 months' service at home.
(b) Amount.—(i) A minimum payment varying with rank from £5 for a private, up to £15 for a warrant officer class I (approximately equivalent to 67 days' pay).

(ii) additional payments, if the soldier had more than 12 months' service, of 10s. 0d. or 5s. 0d. for each month or part of a month's war service beyond the first 12 months according to whether he had served overseas or not. The maximum number of these monthly additions was 48, equivalent to a gratuity of 5 years' war service.
(iii) lower rates were prescribed for boys (£2 minimum and additional payments at the rate of 2s. 6d. unless the boy served overseas, when the full 10s. 0d. was given).


(c) Service reckonable—war service between 4th August, 1914, and 3rd August, 1919; rank for the purposes of the minimum payment was the substantive, temporary, or (paid) acting rank held at termination of service (or on 11th November, 1918, if higher).
(d) The ordinary discharge gratuity under the Pay Warrant of £1 for each year or part of a year was merged in the war gratuity except for regular soldiers who were eligible for both.

PUNISHMENTS (PRIVILEGE LEAVE).

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War whether punishment by confinement to barracks or detention for short periods automatically deprives a soldier of privilege leave?

Captain Margesson: No, Sir.

Mr. Bellenger: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend know that in some units commanding officers are depriving men of their privilege leave because the men have been sentenced to some short term of confinement to barracks?

Captain Margesson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me particulars of such cases so that I can look into them.

OFFICERS (REVERSION TO UNEMPLOYMENT).

Mr. Graham White: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will arrange for the Ministry of National Service to be notified of the qualifications of all officers reverting to unemployment, in order that they may be informed of opportunities of further National Service, if possible, before they leave the Army?

Captain Margesson: When it is decided to revert an officer to unemployment he is advised to get in touch with the Central Register or the Supplementary Register of the Ministry of Labour and National Service in order that he may obtain information as to the opportunities for further National Service. It has been decided, however, to arrange that in future full particulars of all officers who are relegated to unemployment or relinquish their commissions stall be notified to the Ministry of Labour and National Service.

CADET UNITS (INFORMATION).

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: asked the Secretary of State for War what arrangements


he has made with the Board of Education and local youth committees, in view of the forthcoming interviews with boys desirous of joining Army cadet units?

Captain Margesson: The secretaries of all County Cadet Committees and officers commanding Cadet units have been given the addresses of their local education authorities, and have been instructed to get in touch with those authorities, in order that information about the Cadet Force may be given to boys when they are interviewed. The Board of Education has similarly arranged to notify to the local education authorities the names and addresses of the local cadet authorities who can supply information about the Cadet Force.

Mr. Lindsay: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend see that the information which has been given is carried out, as the boys are being interviewed this week, and it is very important not to raise hopes unless the arrangements for fulfilling them are absolutely clear and adequate?

OFFICERS' WIDOWS (PENSIONS).

Rear-Admiral Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for War whether pensions to officers' widows are now awarded on the basis of the full rank of the husband who was serving in a lower rank when he lost his life; and in how many cases pensions have been awarded, since the outbreak of war, to widows of such deceased officers?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions (Mr. Paling): I have been asked to reply. In the case of an officer who loses his life during, and as a result of, service in the present war, any award to the widow under the war pensions code will be based on the substantive or war substantive rank the officer held, provided that if, on the date he was killed, he held higher paid temporary or paid acting rank, the award may be determined by such higher rank. In the case of a retired officer reemployed, the award is determined by the rank in which he was employed, or by the rank appropriate to the appointment in which he was employed, on the date he was killed. As regards the second part of the Question, I regret that the information for which the hon. Member asks is not available.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Is there not a distinction between officers of high rank who may be serving as volunteers in the Home Guard, and those who are recalled for service and who may be serving in a rank junior to that which they had previously attained?

Mr. Paling: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put that Question on the Paper.

POSTHUMOUS AWARDS.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for War whether awards, other than those of the Victoria Cross and the George Cross, can be made posthumously?

Captain Margesson: I presume that my hon. Friend refers to awards to military personnel. The other awards of this nature are the Indian Order of Merit and the Albert Medal.

Mr. Sorensen: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say why there should be a distinction between certain awards which are given posthumously and other awards which are not given posthumously?

Captain Margesson: No, Sir. I have given the facts.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman look into the matter?

Captain Margesson: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONERS OF WAR.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for War what instructions have been issued about Italian prisoners of war, when not wearing head-dress, saluting British officers by giving the Fascist salute, or otherwise?

Captain Margesson: The instructions are that enemy prisoners of war will salute British officers in the same manner as they would salute their own officers.

Captain McEwen: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has any information to the effect that there are now Russian prisoners of war in Offlag VI B; and whether the German Government have notified their intention of reverting to the principal of mixed nationality camps in general?

Captain Margesson: According to my information, a number of Russian prisoners of war are accommodated in a separate part of Oflag VIB, which is wired off from the British quarters. No notification has been received from the German Government that they intend to adopt the principle of mixed nationality camps in general.

Sir A. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War what is the general position as regards the despatch of parcels to prisoners of war to Germany and Italy at the present time, as compared with that of a year ago?

Sir W. Davison: asked the Secretary of State for War what changes of policy are contemplated in connection with the distribution of parcels by the British Red Cross Society consequent on recent changes in the management of that department?

Captain Margesson: For the past 12 months or so there has been a regular distribution of Red Cross food parcels to British prisoner of war camps in Germany and Italy at a rate which has provided generally an issue of one parcel per man per week. In addition, in order to ensure an even flow, it was decided by the British Red Cross Society to build up a 12 weeks' reserve at Geneva. A few days ago, however the Chairman of the War Organisation of the British Red Cross Society informed me that it had very recently been brought to his notice that the reserve at Geneva which had previously been substantial had been steadily dwindling during the past few months and might not now amount to more than about one week's supply. This had, he said, been due in the main to two causes, first, to the fact that in anticipation of direct supplies from overseas which have not materialised the number of parcels packed by the Red Cross had been reduced and, secondly, to the fact that one of the Red Cross ships has been damaged. He assured me, however, that as soon as these facts became known to him steps had been taken to remedy the situation as quickly as possible.
In the circumstances I am afraid that some temporary diminution in deliveries is inevitable. Although there is in some camps a reserve of some two weeks' supply, all camp Leaders are being advised for the time being to reduce the issue of parcels. This unfortunate diminution

in the reserve of parcels at Geneva has evidently been a gradual process extending over a number of months, and is, of course, in no way attributable to the change in the management of the Red Cross Prisoner of War Department, which occurred only last week.

Sir A. Knox: Is it not a fact that there has been a great improvement in the distribution of parcels during the past year, and is it not entirely due to the wonderful business ability and foreign connections of Mr. Stanley Adams? Does not the Minister consider it a Government responsibility not to let this public servant, who has done so much for our prisoners of war, leave his present employment?

Captain Margesson: It is not for me to interfere with the internal arrangements of the British Red Cross Society. I agree that there has been an improvement in the distribution of parcels, and I have no reason to believe that that improvement will not be maintained.

Sir A. Knox: Do not the Government subsidise the British Red Cross Society, and have they no control over the appointment of personnel? Does the Minister know that this resignation has been received with feelings of consternation?

Sir W. Davison: Is the Minister aware that we give a subsidy from this House to the Red Cross Society for the benefit of our prisoners of war? Surely we are entitled to inquire why Mr. Adams, who has done so much for our prisoners of war, has suddenly resigned? We ought to know the reasons.

Captain Margesson: The British Red Cross Society are not under the control of His Majesty's Government. They have the right to make their own appointments in their own way.

Sir Hugh O'Neill: Can the Minister say who is now doing the work which was previously performed by Mr. Adams?

Captain Margesson: The name has been published in the Press. He is a man of great experience of railway management, and his name is Mr. Eddy.

Sir W. Davison: Is not this attitude of the War Office, as to their not being directly responsible, a mere punctilio? Is it not their responsibility to see that everything possible is being done for our 90,000 British prisoners of war?

Oral Answers to Questions — POLISH OFFICERS (LEAVE).

Mr. McKinlay: asked the Secretary of State for War upon what grounds have approximately 200 Polish officers stationed at a place of which he has been given notice, been granted two years leave; on whose instructions are the Armed Forces denied the service of these men; how many artillery officers are stationed there; how many men with medical qualifications; who brought them to this country; and will he take steps to see that the officers in question are given the opportunity to fight for the Allied cause on one of the many fronts?

Captain Margesson: I understand that the Polish officers referred to were mostly evacuated to this country from France with the Polish Forces and are not required for immediate employment in the Polish Army for various reasons. They have therefore been granted prolonged leave by the Polish authorities in order to enable them to take up civilian employment. A very large proportion of these officers are of low medical category and many are over 50 years of age.

Mr. McKinlay: Is the Minister aware that the local people are distracted at the thought that their young men are being taken into the Fighting Services while these men, most of whom are physically fit, are denied the right to fight because, perhaps, of some political reason? If there are political reasons associated with this matter, will he have these officers removed from this vulnerable area from which convoys are sent across the Western ocean?

Captain Margesson: My information is that they are mostly of low medical category and that many are over 50 years of age. In addition, we are doing our best to find civilian employment for these men.

Captain Alan Graham: Is it not in every way regrettable that such aspersions should be cast on Allied officers?

Mr. McKinlay: I am not casting aspersions. If medical evidence is produced that these men are physically fit, will the Minister take up the matter?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVILIAN WATCHMEN.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is in a position to make some statement regarding the

employment of civilian defence guards by institutions and organisations throughout the country, having regard to the present practice of employing, at a weekly wage, these defence guards with a stipulation that they should immediately be enrolled as members of the Home Guard; and whether he has considered the obligation thus placed on these men, since this practice makes them paid weekly members of the Home Guard?

Captain Margesson: I am aware that certain firms and other undertakings employ paid civilian watchmen for the protection of some of their installations which have been scheduled as vulnerable points. It has been agreed some time ago that these watchmen although following a civil employment, should be ercouraged to enrol in the Home Guard, in order that they may be properly organised and entitled to be supplied with arms. They are not, however, paid from Army Funds, or entitled to claim Home Guard subsistence allowances while on paid duty for their employers, and I cannot therefore agree that this arrangement amounts to making these men paid members of the Home Guard.

Mr. De la Bère: Does not my right hon. and gallant Friend realise that it is rather involved, and that in some vises it does amount almost to a subterfuge to suggest that they are not getting a weekly wage? You cannot tell when a man is in the Home Guard and when he is not. The whole thing is very involved.

Captain Margesson: I thought my answer was pellucidly clear.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLLIERY EXPLOSIONS (INQUIRY AND REPORTS).

Mr. MacLaren: asked the Secretary for Mines what further investigation is to be made into the causes of the recent explosion at Sneyd Colliery; and whether he is considering the need for action to strengthen further the precautions against colliery explosions generally?

The Secretary for Mines (Mr. David Grenfell): The recent explosion at Sneyd Colliery is to be investigated by a Public Court of Inquiry consisting of Sir Henry Walker (formerly His Majesty's Chief Inspector of Mines) as Commissioner, and Mr. F. Llewellyn Jacob and Mr. W. J. Saddler as Assessors. The dare and place


of the Inquiry will be announced by the Commissioner, and I have asked that it shall proceed as speedily as possible. In the meantime, the present Chief Inspector of Mines is to prepare for me a report reviewing generally the colliery explosions of the past few years, and the Safety in Mines Research Board, at my request, is to review the plans and progress of its researches, which have been going on continuously for many years, into the causes and prevention of coal dust explosions. These reports and the report of the Court of Inquiry will, I hope, provide a sound basis for a reconsideration of existing precautions in the light of the rather disquieting experience of recent years.

Mr. T. Smith: Has the chairman been decided upon?

Mr. Grenfell: The chairman is Sir Henry Walker.

Oral Answers to Questions — PETROL RATIONING.

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Secretary for Petroleum whether, in view of the changing conditions of the war, he will make regulations with regard to the issue of petrol coupons, designed to restrict the use of petrol only to purposes of national importance?

The Secretary for Petroleum (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): Existing regulations are sufficient; and I would draw my hon. Friend's attention to the further cuts in the basic ration announced last week.

Sir W. Smithers: How does the hon. Gentleman justify the presence of from 800 to 1,000 cars at race meetings in the present very serious state of things, and in view of the necessity for saving shipping space?

Viscountess Astor: How does the hon. Gentleman justify some enormous Rolls Royce cars being used in London at the present time, and is not his own car a pretty good size, too?

Mr. Shinwell: How does the hon. Gentleman justify the use of petroleum, in existing circumstances, for purely pleasure purposes?

Mr. Lloyd: I have announced the Government's policy with regard to the basic ration, and I prefer the policy of a

reduction where necessary in the light of events rather than a ruthless abolition of the basic ration at the present time.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise the light of events now?

Sir H. Williams: How many Members of Parliament have arrived at places of amusement in the last month in taxi cabs?

Mr. De la Bère: The matter cannot be lightly dismissed; indeed, it cannot be dismissed at all.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES (EIRE CITIZENS, ENLISTMENT).

Mr. Stokes: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs how many persons from Eire have enlisted in the British Armed Forces since the outbreak of war up to a convenient date?

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Shakespeare): I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War that this information is not available.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES TROOPS, NORTHERN IRELAND (EIRE PROTEST).

Professor Savory: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has received either through the High Commissioner for Eire in London, or through the United Kingdom Representative to Eire in Dublin, a protest against the landing of American troops in Northern Ireland on the ground that Mr. de Valera was not consulted; and what reply he has made to this protest?

Mr. Shakespeare: The High Commissioner for Eire handed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs on 28th January a copy of a statement which Mr. de Valera had made to the Press on the previous day. The High Commissioner intimated that a copy of this statement was also being communicated to the United States Government. No reply was called for or given by my right hon. Friend.

Professor Savory: Does the Minister not think that this serves as a very dangerous precedent? Does he realise that this is the second time within a year that this intervention has taken place without any


juridical or even moral basis, and that Ulster looks to His Majesty's Government to maintain her constitutional and territorial rights?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT.

MARRIED NURSES.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the urgent need for nurses in many hospitals in the country, it is intended to direct fully-qualified married nurses without children to take up this form of employment?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Tomlinson): In the case of married nurses, as of other married women, proper account must be taken of their domestic responsibilities. Subject to such responsibilities, I feel sure that married nurses in general are prepared to make their services available but, if necessary, my right hon. Friend would be prepared in appropriate cases to issue directions.

Mr. Adams: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that a very serious situation now prevails in regard to the shortage of nurses? While it is true that some in the category I have mentioned have volunteered is he aware that there are large numbers declining to volunteer, and, in view of the urgency, cannot the directions be given as suggested?

Mr. Tomlinson: That is not the responsibility of my Department.

Mr. Buchanan: Would it not be much better to see that the conditions of employment are first made more attractive?

DOMESTIC WORKERS, HOSPITALS.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the shortage of domestic workers in hospitals still persists; that numbers of those who perform these duties for a time, move off into other occupations with the result that skilled nursing staff are increasingly being called upon to carry out domestic duties; and whether, in view of these facts, he will apply the Essential Work Order to domestic staffs in hospitals?

Mr. Tomlinson: I have nothing to add to the reply given on 22nd January to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Adams: Can I have some idea as to what that reply was?

WOMEN WORKERS (CARE OF CHILDREN).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Health what steps he has taken to make provision for the care of the young children of women war-workers while the mothers are at work; what progress has been made, to 31st January, 1942, in the establishment of war-time nurseries in England and Wales; whether he is satisfied with the nature and extent of the arrangements made for these nurseries by the maternity and child welfare authorities in the key districts; and, if not, what further steps he will take with a view to meeting the needs of the situation?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement made in the Debate on the Adjournment on 5th February last by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Adams: Could we not have the information to bring the matter up to date?

Miss Horsbrugh: The figures given on 5th February are the last figures. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the record of the Debate he will see them set out.

Viscountess Astor: Will the hon. Lady bear in mind that the figures are most unsatisfactory?

Oral Answers to Questions — BLACK-MARKET OPERATORS (PENALTIES).

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Secretary of State of the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the increasing indignation of the public at the activities of black-market operators in controlled food and goods; and whether he will consider taking powers to intern such persons for the duration of the war, and for one year afterwards, if their operations are proved to have been systematic and if they have been previously convicted on similar charges?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): My right hon. Friend fully agrees that offenders of the kind which my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind ought to be locked up for long periods, both as a punishment for their grossly anti-social conduct and


as a method of preventing them from doing any further harm during the continuance of the war. He refers, however, to cases where the illicit operations of such people "are proved to have been systematic," and as regards offences of which proof can be provided, I think there are objections of principle to the proposal that action should be taken by administrative procedure rather than by procedure in the criminal courts.

Mr. Shinwell: Could not the Under-Secretary influence the Government to pass a law empowering the courts to send these people to long-term penal servitude?

Sir T. Moore: Could not flogging be introduced as well?

Mr. Peake: No doubt the hon. Member is aware that under Defence Regulation 92 they can be sentenced to a term of up to two years' imprisonment, and that under Defence Regulation 55 they may be fined in three times the value of the goods concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIABILITIES (WAR-TIME ADJUSTMENT).

Mr. Doland: asked the Attorney-General how many cases of traders in difficulties owing to the war have been brought before a liabilities adjustment officer and/or the court under the Liabilities (War Time Adjustment) Act, 1941, since the Act was passed; and with what results?

The Solicitor-General (Sir William Jowitt): Most of the applicants to liabilities adjustment officers or to courts have been traders. During the period from 1st July, when the Act came into operation, to 31st December, 1941, the number of applications accepted by adjustment officers was 940, of which 223 were subsequently rejected as unsuitable for proceedings under the Act. During this period 64 schemes were approved, 279 protection orders were made, of which 17 were subsequently revoked, and 63 adjustment orders were made. Advice and assistance were given by adjustment officers in 566 cases that were considered unsuitable for proceedings under the Act. Since 31st December, 1941, 56 protection orders and 35 adjustment orders have been made.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA (MARSHAL CHIANG KAI-SHEK'S VISIT).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the recent consultations between Marshal Chiang Kai-shek and Pandit Nehru in the Viceroy's residence and elsewhere, and the great impression this event has made, it is proposed that they should meet the Viceroy officially respecting issues of immediate and future significance to the peoples of India, China and the Far East?

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): Marshal Chiang Kai-shek's visit to India has been of great military value, and has given proof of the solidarity of our common front against the Axis. Neither the Generalissimo nor Mr. Nehru has suggested that the latter should take part in the Generalissimo's official consultation with the Viceroy, nor does it appear from a speech which Mr. Nehru has made since meeting the Marshal that he would wish to do so.

Mr. Sorensen: If Marshal Chiang Kai-shek feels it is of significance and value to meet Pandit Nehru, would this not be an excellent opportunity to make a direct approach to both of these gentlemen with a view to a fresh approach to the Indian problem?

Mr. Amery: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTER OF DEFENCE.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the military situation in Libya and the Far East, and in order to ensure the best practical use of the resources at our disposal, he will now appoint a Minister of Defence to advise on war strategy?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): No, Sir.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask whether the Prime Minister has read the speech made on this subject by Lord Chatfield in another place on 28th January, and whether he is aware of the growing volume of competent opinion that it is wrong for the Offices of Prime Minister and Minister of Defence to be held by the same person?

The Prime Minister: I would be quite ready to test the opinion of the House by putting down my salary for Debate.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH WAR COUNCIL (DOMINION REPRESENTATION).

Mr. Purbrick: asked the Prime Minister whether, in considering the question of giving representation in the British War Council to a representative of the Australian or any other Dominion Government, he will first take into consideration to what extent their war co-operation has been for service overseas or only for their home forces; and how far it has been a question of individuals volunteering as compared with national action by the Dominion?

The Prime Minister: I do not think it would be desirable to act as my hon. Friend suggests.

Major Lyons: Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to reconsider the whole question of the formation of a real Empire War Cabinet?

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to what I have said on the subject on various occasions.

Oral Answers to Questions — OCCUPIED FRANCE (WAR MATERIAL, BOMBING).

Sir H. Williams: asked the Prime Minister whether it is on political grounds that we have refrained from bombing dumps of enemy war material in occupied France?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — SINGAPORE.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make on the present situation in Singapore?

The Prime Minister: With the permission of the House, I propose to make a short statement at the end of Questions.

Earl Winterton: May I ask whether the statement will be made in answer to a Question, or will it be made on the Adjournment? Will the Prime Minister have regard to the wish expressed on previous occasions in this House to avoid, as far as possible, statements on great matters of public moment being made when it is not possible for any Debate to follow?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTENDANT-GENERAL, CAIRO (ABOLITION OF POST).

Mr. Stokes: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make regarding the return of the Intendant-General from Cairo to this country; and whether-that post is now to be abolished?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. On the advice of the Minister of State, and with the concurrence of Sir Robert Raining himself, I approved the abolition of the post of Intendant-General early in January. The creation of the post of Minister of State some two months after the appointment of Sir Robert Haining and the provision of a senior Army Officer to be in charge, under the Commander-in-Chief, of the administration of the Army in the Middle East, removed the necessity for the co-existence of an Intendant-General. Sir Robert Haining's preparatory work has been of great value and has laid the foundations upon which the present organisations are now building.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask whether, in fact, Sir Robert Haining went there to do a job of work, or whether he went there because he disagreed with the Minister of Defence over the ill-judged expedition to Greece?

The Prime Minister: A most unwarrantable and untruthful suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOARD OF ADMIRALTY.

Major Milner: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give particulars and publish the relevant Order in Council defining the responsibility within the Admiralty for naval operations?

The Prime Minister: I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate the relevant Order in Council in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the Order in Council:

"AT THE COURT AT BUCKINGHAM PALACE.

The 9th day of February, 1942.

PRESENT,

THE KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY IN COUNCIL.

WHEREAS there was this day read at the Board a Memorial from the Right Honourable the Loras Commissioners of the Admiralty, dated the 6th day of February, 1942 (C.E. 50967/42), in the words following, viz.:—
Whereas by Order in Council dated the fifteenth day of January, 1941, the constitution and business of the Board of Admiralty were settled and defined:


And whereas by Order in Council dated the eleventh day of September, 1941, there was added to the Board an additional Assistant Chief of Naval Staff:
And whereas it has become desirable to make a further addition to the Membership of the Board:
We beg leave humbly to propose to Your Majesty that the above Order in Council shall be rescinded, and that the constitution of the Board and the designations of its various Members and Secretaries and the definition of the business to be assigned to them shall be as follows:

1. That the Members of the Board shall be:

The First Lord,
The First Sea Lord and Chief of Naval Staff,
The Second Sea Lord and Chief of Naval Personnel,
The Third Sea Lord and Controller of the Navy,
The Fourth Sea Lord and Chief of Supplies,
The Fifth Sea Lord and Chief of Naval Air Services,
The Vice Chief of Naval Staff,
Four Assistant Chiefs of Naval Staff,
The Financial Secretary,
The Parliamentary Secretary,
The Civil Lord,
The Controller of Merchant Shipbuilding and Repairs,
The Permanent Secretary.

2. That the First Lord shall be responsible to Your Majesty, and to Parliament, for all the business of the Admiralty, the business to be transacted as follows:

(a) The First Sea Lord, the Second Sea Lord, the Fourth Sea Lord, the Fifth Sea Lord, the Vice Chief of Naval Staff and four Assistant Chiefs of Naval Staff to be responsible to the First Lord of the Admiralty for the administration of so much of the general business connected with Your Majesty's Navy, and with the movement and condition of Your Majesty's Fleet, and with the Personnel of that Fleet, as shall be assigned to them, or to each of them from time to time, by the First Lord; and the First Sea Lord as Chief of Naval Staff, to be in addition responsible to the First Lord for the issue of orders to the Fleet affecting war operations and the movement of ships, which orders may be issued in his own name in his capacity of Chief of the Naval Staff:
(b) The Third Sea Lord and Controller to be responsible to the First Lord for the administration of so much of the business relating to the Materiel of Your Majesty's Navy as shall from time to time be assigned to him by the First Lord:
(c) The Financial Secretary to be responsible to the First Lord for the Finance of the Department, and for so much of the other business of the Admiralty as shall, from time to time, be assigned to him by the First Lord:
(d) The Parliamentary Secretary to have such duties as shall, from time to time, be assigned to him by the First Lord:
(e) The Civil Lord to have such duties as shall, from time to time, be assigned to him by the First Lord:

(f) The Controller of Merchant Shipbuilding and Repairs to be responsible to the First Lord for the administration of so much of the business connected with the building and repair of merchant ships and for such duties in connection with the production of the Materiel of Your Majesty's Navy as shall from time to time be assigned to him by the First Lord:
(g) The Permanent Secretary to be responsible to the First Lord for the preparation of all official communications of the Board and for the interior economy of the Admiralty Office; he is also responsible, on his appointment as Accounting Officer for Navy Votes and Accounts, for the control of expenditure and for advising the Board of Admiralty and other naval authorities on all questions of naval expenditure:

He shall further be charged with such other duties in regard to the business of the Admiralty as shall, from time to time, be assigned to him by the First Lord.

We beg leave humbly to recommend that Your Majesty way be graciously pleased, by Your Order in Council, to sanction the foregoing, with effect from the 9th February, 1942.

The Lords Commissioners of Your Majesty's Treasury have concurred in such portion of these proposals as requires their concurrence.'

HIS MAJESTY, having taken the said Memorial into consideration, was pleased, by and with the advice of His Privy Council, to approve of what is therein proposed.

AND the Right Honourable the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty are to give the necessary directions herein accordingly.

Rupert B. Howorth."

Mr. Silverman: asked the Prime Minister who now comprise the Board of Admiralty; what Order in Council or other enactment defines the respective functions and responsibility of each member; where such Order in Council may be seen; whether the Board meets to take decisions; and whether such decisions are submitted to him before action upon them proceeds?

The Prime Minister: I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate a nominal list of the present Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The relevant Order in Council is being circulated in reply to the Question by the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner). With regard to the last part of the Question, the nature of the business to be transacted determines whether the Board meets in full session to take a decision and also whether decisions so taken are submitted to me either as Head of the Government or Minister of Defence.

Major Milner: Will the Prime Minister say whether the Order in Council gives complete authority to the First Sea Lord, and whether members of the Board have any authority at all?

The Prime Minister: The operative words are in paragraph 2 (a):
the First Sea Lord as Chief of the Naval Staff, to be in addition responsible to the First Lord for the issue of orders to the Fleet affecting war operations and the movement of ships, which orders may be issued in his own name in his capacity of Chief of the Naval Staff.

Mr. Silverman: Is the House to understand from the original answer that the Board of Admiralty does not meet regularly, and that, except for the exceptional circumstances in which it does meet in full session, the Board of Admiralty is really only a circumlocution office for the Minister of Defence?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman seems to have got the Minister of Defence very much in his head. There has been no change in the composition or character of the Board of Admiralty, or the way in which it does its work. It was established in the last war, and it is well known that the Chief of the Naval Staff, subject to the general supervision of the First Lord and of the Cabinet, is responsible for all the movements and dispositions of the Fleet.

Mr. Silverman: Will the Prime Minister answer that part of the Question which I addressed to him, as to whether it can be taken as a general rule that the Board does not meet regularly and meets in full session only occasionally?

The Prime Minister: The Board meets, as it has always met, when questions of a certain class affecting the Naval Service or the general naval policy are to be discussed. The Board does not meet to decide on operations, and I hope that it will never be encouraged to do that.

Following is the list:

The present Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty are as follow:

The First Lord—The Right Hon. A. V. Alexander, C.H., M.P.
The First Sea Lord and Chief of Naval Staff—Admiral of the Fleet Sir Dudley Pound, G.C.B., G.C.V.O.
The Second Sea Lord and Chief of Naval Personnel—Vice-Admiral Sir William J. Whitworth, K.C.B., D.S.O.
The Third Sea Lord and Controller of the Navy—Vice-Admiral Sir Bruce A. Fraser, K.B.E., C.B.

The Fourth Sea Lord and Chief of Supplies—Vice-Admiral Sir John H. D. Cunningham, K.C.B., M.V.O.
The Fifth Sea Lord and Chief of Naval Air Services—Rear-Admiral A. L. St. G. Lyster, C.B., C.V.O., D.S.O.
The Vice Chief of Naval Staff—Vice-Admiral Henry R. Moore, C.B., C.V.O., D.S.O.
Assistant Chief of Naval Staff—Vice-Admiral Edward L. S. King, C.B., M.V.O.
Assistant Chief of Naval Staff—Rear-Admiral Sir Henry Harwood, K.C.B., O.B.E.
Assistant Chief of Naval Staff—Rear-Admiral A. J. Power, C.B., C.V.O.
Assistant Chief of Naval Staff—Rear-Admiral R. R. McGrigor.
The Financial Secretary—Mr. G. H. Hall, M.P.
The Parliamentary Secretary—Sir Victor A. G. A. Warrender, Bart., M.C., M.P.
The Civil Lord—Captain A. U. M. Hudson, M.P.
The Controller of Merchant Shipbuilding and Repairs—Sir James Lithgow, Bart., M.C., T.D.
The Permanent Secretary—Sir Henry V. Markham, K.V.B., M.C.

Oral Answers to Questions — WASHINGTON'S BIRTHDAY.

Mr. Hannah: asked the Prime Minister whether he will mark our close relations with America by some official recognition of Washington's birthday on 22nd February?

The Prime Minister: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for the suggestion, and I will bear it in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING.

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Rear-Admiral BEAMISH:

53. To ask the Minister without Portfolio what Minister is now responsible for the administration of the Town and Country Planning Acts; and, in particular, who is responsible for dealing with local authorities in respect of those Acts?

The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): I understood this Question was withdrawn.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: I had a Supplementary Question on it.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

POST-WAR CREDITS.

Mr. Cary: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the widespread feeling among working people


that registration of the post-war credit is too indefinite and gives to the individual no proprietary interest in the future; and will he consider the advisability, in his forthcoming Budget, of giving the postwar credit more tangible form either by the issue of a special credit bond to be held by each individual or some other means of savings receipt?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): Section 7 of the Finance Act, 1941, makes definite provision for the allowance of post-war credit and there should be no doubt in the mind of anyone that the provisions of the law will be implemented. I have been aware, however, of the necessity for bringing this home to taxpayers generally, and steps have been taken to that end by broadcasting and otherwise. Moreover, it is proposed to issue to every taxpayer a statement showing the amount of the credit to which he is entitled for each year, and this individual notification will be issued showing the credit for the current year 1941–42 as soon as the assessment for the year is complete and the amount of the credit has been computed.

Mr. Cary: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of increasing the size of the post-war credit in relation to earnings above a certain level of overtime work?

Sir K. Wood: If I said anything about that, I should be anticipating my Budget statement.

Colonel Arthur Evans: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the increasing tendency to arrange for post-war credits to be made available to a large proportion of the population, including Income Tax payers and Service personnel, he has any special plans for ensuring that the value of these credits will not be prejudiced by further substantial reduction in the purchasing power of the pound?

Sir K. Wood: It is an essential feature of the Government's policy to take all possible steps to restrict inflation and to maintain the purchasing power of the pound. This, as my hon. and gallant Friend rightly suggests, has an important bearing on the system of post-war credits.

Mr. A. Edwards: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is quite incorrect?

The Government are making the increase, and the Government alone are responsible for the inflation?

EXCESS PROFITS TAX.

Mr. Hannah: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the necessity under which new companies are laid in order to maintain or increase output constantly to increase their bank overdrafts, the 8 or 10 per cent. upon their working capital at present allowed being no substitute for the reserves at the disposal of well-established older firms; and will he receive a deputation on this subject?

Sir K. Wood: I do not consider that the percentages of 8 or 10 per cent. are inadequate as representing a measure of return on capital for Excess Profits Tax purposes. As I explained to my hon. Friend in reply to his Question of 20th January, this percentage allowed on the capital employed in a business whether the capital is borrowed or owned. I would also point out that special provisions have been enacted under which relief is allowable for both Income Tax and Excess Profits Tax purposes in respect of exceptional depreciation of buildings, plant or machinery provided since the beginning of 1937. I shall be pleased to consider any particular cases that my hon. Friend may desire to bring to my notice.

BLACK MARKET OPERATIONS (TAXATION).

Sir J. Lucas: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to see that black market profiteers who are known to have made large sums of money shall be made to pay their due share of Income Tax, Surtax and Excess Profits Tax, in view of the Government policy that no manufacturer or trader should become richer by reason of the war?

Sir K. Wood: My hon. Friend may rest assured that all possible steps are and will be taken to secure the proper assessment and payment of taxes to which he refers.

Sir J. Lucas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the United States gangsters are given long terms of imprisonment for tax evasion, and will he take similar action in this country as a means of tackling this problem?

Sir K. Wood: There is another Question on that.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: What policy is the right hon. Gentleman adopting to eliminate this foul practice of ready cash trading, which eliminates all records of bookkeeping transactions?

LARGE PURCHASES (CASH PAYMENTS).

Sir Frank Sanderson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he is aware that an extensive business is being conducted at auction rooms and sales of precious stones, jewellery and other articles of value, which are paid for in notes, thus seriously interfering with legitimate business and evading taxation; and will he cause inquiries to be made among the auctioneers in London, in particular, and elsewhere, for a list of the names of these people who have habitually attended such auction sales and purchased quantities of valuable materials for which they have paid in notes;
(2) whether he is aware of the injustice which is being done among certain branches of business and industry due to the increasing volume of business whirl is being conducted on a cash basis with a view to evading taxation; and will he take all possible steps to prevent a continuance of this and, in particular, make it compulsory for all goods purchased for an amount exceeding, say, £50 to be paid for by cheque?

Sir K. Wood: As regards the suggestion that payment by cheque should be made compulsory in the case of purchases exceeding a given amount, I do not think collusion would be avoided and it would be difficult to make such legislation effective.

Sir F. Sanderson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on the basis of the present rate of taxation, namely, Income Tax and Surtax, that in legitimate trade a profit of £150,000 would require to be made to be equivalent to a profit of £7,000 made in the black market, and in view of this will he not consider means whereby this insidious method can be completely stamped out, both in the interest of the taxpayer and the Treasury and fair trade?

Major Lyons: Will the right hon. gentleman consider whether this would not be one of the ways in which he could help to stop black-marketing?

Sir K. Wood: I do not think it would be one of the best ways of doing it.

Sir F. Sanderson: Wilt the right hon. Gentleman consider asking auctioneers to supply the names of consistent buyers of goods for which they pay cash?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir.

CHARITABLE TRUSTS (TAX REMISSIONS).

Mr. McEntee: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) in regard to Case T.1193/6/38 Inland Revenue, how far back from the date of his appointment by the trustees to investigate payments from this trust fund: the inquiry was carried by the investigator; how many of the payments from the between these dates were investigated; what number were found to be illegally made; what was the amount of tax remission obtained on such illegal payments; what steps are being taken to recover the money so lost to the revenue; and is it proposed to take any punitive action against the person concerned;
(2) whether he is aware that in Case T.1193/6/38, Inland Revenue, out of 18 payments purporting to have been made in one year out of this charitable trust to a methodist church in Surrey, only one was actually paid to it; and that out of a larger total of 58 payments professedly made to the same church only two were in fact paid to it; that the payments that did not reach the church were made, some as gifts, and some as loans to private persons on the condition that they were to be repaid to the settlor in full; and will he take steps to recover the tax remissions up to 13s. 3d. in the £, secured by the settlor on all these payments falsely represented as gifts made to a church;
(3) whether he is aware that it has been reported to the trustees of the charitable trust concerned in Case T.1193/6/38 Inland Revenue, and to the Income Tax department concerned, that the money gifts said to have been given by the person concerned in this case, and other members of his family, to a Methodist Church in a municipal borough in Essex, in one year, exceeded the entire revenue of the church from all sources for that year; has any action been taken to investigate the facts of this case; and with what result?

Sir K. Wood: I would remind my hon. Friend that the matters referred to concern certain legal proceedings which are


now pending. It would therefore be improper for me to make any statement.

Mr. McEntee: In view of the fact that these proceedings are taken at the instance of the bank, who are the trustees, is it not relevant to deal with the matters about which evidence exists, which cannot be disputed?

Sir K. Wood: I should not like to comment on any of these matters in reply to a Question.

Mr. McEntee: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to bring up the evidence that he knows to exist before the court when that case is being tried?

Sir K. Wood: The hon. Member had better put that Question to the Attorney-General.

COMMODITY PRICES.

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Government practice of allowing price increases conflicts with its declared policy of price stabilisation; and when he intends to begin a practical policy to prevent the inflationary spiral?

Sir K. Wood: It is not the case that a rise in the cost of a controlled commodity involves a rise in the selling price. Each case is considered on its merits in the light of the policy of price stabilisation. I have explained on several occasions the substantial measures adopted by the Government in pursuit of that policy.

Mr. Edwards: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the recent increase in the price of petrol will be paid almost entirely by the Government, and that an increase in the price of practically every other commodity will be the result?

INFLATION.

Colonel Arthur Evans: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the warnings of the dangers of inflation which have been given by chairmen of the British banks, he will consider publishing a memorandum, in the form of a White Paper, setting out the further views of the Treasury on the danger of inflation and the best method of avoiding it?

Sir K. Wood: The addresses by the chairmen of the principal banks stress the

success which has been achieved in keeping the danger of inflation in check and the need for all citizens to co-operate in increasing degree to this end by refraining from unnecessary expenditure and by saving everything that it is in their power to save. I need add nothing to this and to the similar statements which I have made from time to time.

INCOME TAX (TRAVELLING EXPENSES).

Mr. Leslie: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider placing non-manual workers on the same basis as manual workers in relation to an allowance on Income Tax, where they have to spend a considerable sum in travelling expenses to and from their work?

Sir K. Wood: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) on 10th February.

Mr. Leslie: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider it anomalous for two men to be employed by the same firm, one in the office and the other in the workshop, one getting relief in this way which is denied to the other?

Sir K. Wood: There has been a Debate on the subject recently.

Mr. Rhys Davies: In considering his Budget proposals, will the right hon. Gentleman do nothing to discriminate against non-manual workers?

LUXURY RESTAURANTS.

Commander King-Hall: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a wasteful expenditure of money is taking place in luxury restaurants; and whether he proposes to take any steps to direct this expenditure into channels more useful to the prosecution of the war and less harmful to the principle of equality of sacrifice?

Sir K. Wood: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Food has imposed restrictions on the supply of rationed foods to luxury as to other restaurants. If my hon. Friend has in mind the use of taxation for restricting this type of luxury expenditure, I would remind him that existing taxation, and in particular provisions made in my last get, have no doubt had a restricting effect. As regards further action, my hon. Friend will not expect me to anticipate my Budget statement.

Mr. Woodburn: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider a suggestion I have made that all meals above a certain price should pay a heavy tax?

Mr. Riley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many West End restaurants scores of people are paying 20s. for a meal, and should not that be stopped?

Mr. E. Walkden: Could not a maximum price for meals be fixed?

CIVIL SERVANTS (PAY, ARMED FORCES).

Major Milner: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will give the approximate sum paid to the latest convenient date, to the former Government employees now in the services, in order to make up their pay to the wage or salary received in civil life?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): The payments in question have never been separately accounted for, and I regret that it would involve disproportionate expenditure of time and labour to aggregate the cost of the balance of civil pay of the large numbers of Civil servants serving with the Forces.

Major Milner: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that there is great dissatisfaction about this matter? Why should the employees of particular employers have a preference by having their wages made up in this way? Cannot the figures be got out?

Captain Crookshank: It would mean an enormous amount of labour, and I do not think it would be justified. The figures are not kept in any form which make them readily available.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (OVERTIME PAY).

Mr. Purbrick: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the amount of overtime paid in each of the Government Departments during the last month for which the figures are available; and is he satisfied of the necessity in all instances for this overtime to be worked?

Captain Crookshank: I regret that no figures are available. Each Department keeps its own overtime accounts, and

these are not collated. In reply to the second half of the Question, some overtime is now being worked in all Departments in order to save man-power, and in many Departments the overtime is necessarily heavy. General instructions have been issued to every Department to watch the position.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE PEOPLES (USE OF TERMS).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the resentment of African and other coloured peoples in the Colonial Empire at the employment of the term "nigger" in reference to them; what representations and protests has he received on this matter; and what steps he has taken to prevent the employment of this and similar derogatory words in broadcast items and otherwise?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer to his Question on the same subject on 12th February, 1941. No recent representations have been received on the subject.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that since that time, 12 months ago, there have been certain complaints, and will he consider them sympathetically and take action?

Mr. Macmillan: Certainly, but these are rather matters of good feeling and taste.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Ivor Thomas, Esquire, for the County of York, West Riding (Keighley Division).

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

Second Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 50].

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne reported from the Select Committee, pursuant to the Order of the House [19th November], That they had addressed a Memorandum to the Prime Minister for the consideration of the War Cabinet.

WAR SITUATION.

GERMAN WARSHIPS' ESCAPE: INQUIRY.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
I shall deal first with the naval episode which has attracted attention in the last few days. In March last the two German cruisers Scharnhorst and Gneisenau took refuge in Brest harbour, where they were joined in May by the Prinz Eugen after the destruction of the Bismarck. The position of these three ships became a serious preoccupation for the Admiralty. They lay on the flank of our main convoy route to the East, and they could make a sortie at any time on to the Atlantic trade routes or into the Mediterranean. Accordingly, the Admiralty have pressed for their continued attack from the air in the hopes of disabling them and preventing them being repaired. This process continued for more than 10 months, during which time the ships were undoubtedly

hit several times and repair work was made very difficult. No less than 4,000 tons of bombs were dropped, and 3,299 bomber sorties were made upon them, with a loss of 247 Air Force personnel and 43 aircraft. As we were never in a position to know when some or all of these ships might put to sea, the situation entailed almost continuous naval precautions in the hope of being ready at all times to meet the various threats which these ships constituted. A further serious feature was the very grave subtraction from the bombing effort against Germany.
The bombing of these ships was, however, so severe that the Germans evidently came to the decision that they could not maintain them any longer at Brest and that they roust return to Germany. We do not know whether this was for the purpose of effecting final repairs or to enable them to work up to full efficiency in the sheltered waters of the Baltic. However this may be, the Germans resolved to try to bring the ships back to Germany. This was a very hazardous operation. It could be done either by sailing round the British Isles and returning via Norway, or by a dash up the Channel. The Germans rejected the plan of returning north about and preferred to run the admittedly serious risks of the Channel passage. In the Atlantic Ocean they would have run a great risk of being picked up by our extensive air reconnaisances from the shore and from aircraft carriers, or of being slowed down by torpedo attacks and brought to action against overwhelming forces, as was the Bismarck. The Channel route, on the other hand, was a run of under 24 hours, part of which could be made in darkness, possibly by surprise, and they had the opportunity of choosing the weather which would be most favourable. The whole way through the Channel and along the Dutch coast they had the advantage of a powerful air umbrella. The dangers of running past the Dover batteries, under suitable weather conditions, were not great. Our slow convoys repeatedly traverse the Straits of Dover, and are repeatedly bombarded by the German guns on the French shore, but this has not stopped our convoy traffic. One great danger was mines, but this they might hope to avoid by energetic sweeping. There remained, therefore, the action of


surface ships and aircraft. Air reconnaissance would show the Germans that neither heavy ships nor even cruisers were in these narrow waters, and, therefore, attacks by flotillas of destroyers and of small torpedo boats were all that need be expected, apart from the air.
Some people seem to think that heavy forces should have been stationed so as to be able to intercept them in the Channel or the North Sea. Had we done so, our ships would have been open to the same scale of air attack as were the German ships at Brest. Further, any such disposition would have dangerously weakened the preventive measures which we have to take to safeguard our convoys and guard the Northern passage, and to deal with the other German heavy ships, the Tirpitz, Lutzow and Scheer. The Admiralty did not consider that the attempt to run through the Channel would be an impossible operation under the conditions which prevailed, and this was certainly much less to be apprehended than that the ships should break out on to the trade routes or into the Mediterranean. No one can doubt the vigour and courage with which the enemy squadron was attacked as soon as its movement was perceived, and, of course, everyone is very sorry that these ships were not sunk. The only questions which are open are, first: Why was their movement not detected shortly after daylight, and secondly, Was the contact and liaison between the Coastal Command and the Admiralty, and also between the other R.A.F. Commands and the Admiralty, as close as it should have been? At the suggestion of the Admiralty and of the Air Ministry, I have directed that an Inquiry shall be held into these points. The Inquiry will be secret. I doubt very much whether, when completed, its results will be suitable for publication. I am not prepared to give any information about the Inquiry or any undertakings that its results will be made public.
Although it may somewhat surprise the House and the public, I should like to state that, in the opinion of the Admiralty, with which I most cordially concur, this abandonment by the Germans of their position at Brest has been decidedly beneficial to our war situation. The threat to our convoy routes has been removed, and the enemy has been driven to leave his advantageous position. The diversion of

our air bombing effort, which, though necessary, was so wasteful, is over. A heavier scale of attack on Germany is now possible, in which all the near misses will hit German and not French dwellings. Both the Scharnhorst and the Gneisenau have received damage in their passage which will keep them out of action for some time to come, after which they will have to be worked up in gunnery and other practices. Before they can again play any part in the war, the Royal Navy will be reinforced by various important units of the highest quality, and the same strengthening process is going forward in the Navy of the United States. Whatever smart of disappointment or annoyance may remain in our breasts that the final forfeit was not exacted, there is no doubt that the naval position in the Atlantic, so far from being worsened, is definitely eased.

FALL OF SINGAPORE.

I have also been asked whether the Government have a statement to make about the fall of Singapore. This extremely grave event was not unexpected, and its possibility was comprised within the scope of the argument I submitted to the House on the occasion of the Vote of Confidence three weeks ago. The House has, of course, many opportunities of discussing this and other aspects of the war situation. I am sure it would be a great mistake to try to discuss it to day in the short time available. I have no information to give to the House other than that contained in the public press, nor would it be prudent to speculate in detail upon the various evil consequences which will follow from the fall of Singapore. Moreover, it would ill become the dignity of the Government and the House, and would render poor service to the Alliance of which we are a part, if we were drawn into agitated or excited recriminations at a time when all our minds are oppressed with a sense of tragedy and with the sorrow of so lamentable a misfortune. Perhaps, at a later date, when we are more fully informed and when a carefully considered statement can be made, the House may seek for a further Debate upon the situation in the Far East and the prospect of its being retrieved by the combined action of the Allied Powers concerned. I could certainly not take part in any such discussion now.

However, as some hon. Members may be otherwise inclined, and as I did not


wish to prevent them from expressing their opinions, I decided to move the Adjournment, as I have done. The Government will, of course, listen to the Debate, if it takes place, but I hope I may be permitted to remind the House of the extremely serious situation in which we stand, of the use that is made in hostile and even in Allied countries of any loose or intemperate language into which anyone may be drawn, and the importance of the House of Commons maintaining its reputation for firmness and courage in the face of adversity.

Mr. Pethiek-Lawrence: It is clear that the House of Commons will wish at the proper time to have a Debate on the questions with which the Prime Minister has dealt to-day and with the events that have taken place since he made his last statement a little over a fortnight ago. It will want certain questions answered with regard to the past, but it will also want—and this is perhaps the most important thing—to satisfy itself as to the conduct of the war for the future. For instance, one essential question which the House will want discussed is how far the events that have taken place during the last few days in the Channel affect the possibility of an invasion of this Island. Another question which it will want to discuss is what is to happen in the Far East.
The Battle of Europe is not over, of course, nor is the Battle of Britain. What we are witnessing to-day is the beginning of the Battle of Asia. That battle will have to be fought, in the main, by Asiatics themselves, with such limited help as we are able to give them. The Chinese and Indian people comprise between them nearly half the population of the world. For that reason, the part that the British Government must play in the Battle of Asia will have to be political as well as strategical. This question will no doubt figure in the Debate, when we have it.
With regard to the time of the Debate, I think it would be undesirable to have the Debate to-day, as Members want to reflect upon what the Prime Minister has said. To rush at once into any long Debate would be a mistake. On the other hand, it will be the wish of the people of the country that the Debate should not be postponed for any length of time. I have taken the opportunity of consulting

a number of my hon. Friends, and we think that one day this week would be desirable to have the Debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too soon."] It would be not merely an inquest on what has taken place, but an opportunity for the House to put forth its views about what should be done with regard to the future.

The Prime Minister: I am afraid I could not agree to a Debate this week.

Earl Winterton: I should like, on behalf of those of us who have approached the Prime Minister in the past with regard to the method of making announcements, to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his usual courtesy in acceding to what is, obviously, the wish of the House, namely, that when statements on matters of great public moment are made, there should be an opportunity for comment upon them. I find myself in complete agreement with him as to the time of the Debate and, if I may say so, not in agreement with my right hon Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). It is not a question of having a one-day or a two-day Debate. When we discuss this matter we must have a brand inquest on all the things which have occurred—and they have been of a most calamitous nature—since last we had a full-dress Debate in this House. It is, obviously, for the Government and for the Prime Minister to settle the time, having, of course due regard to the general wishes of the House, but, above all, we have to remember the attitude of the country at this moment which is one of profound concern and a great desire for definite information, in so far as it can be given without injury to the interests of the State.
I wish to ask only one question of great importance, namely, on the subject of the Burma Road, but before doing so, I wish to enter this caveat. I cannot accept the defeatist line which is being taken in some quarters in the Press that all this is inevitable, and that, if we question its inevitability, we are showing panic. I cannot accept that point of view. I only want, in a sentence, to challenge those in the Press who make that statement knowing that I, humble individual as I am, have behind me in doing so, the feeling of many in the country, because it happens that I have just come from addressing a mass meeting on behalf of the Ministry of Information in the North of


England, and I found that members of the audience and the principal people there all said, "What we want to know is the truth. We are not satisfied with this attitude in the Press that you must not ever question the actions of the Prime Minister, that you must not ever question the actions of the Government, and that all this is inevitable." I say that the people who make those statements are the real enemies of public morale. I do not believe for one moment that the right hon. Gentleman, with his tremendous regard for this House and public opinion, has ever lent himself to what I can only describe as a conspiracy on the part of those people. They are endeavouring to say to the country, "You must never question the Fuehrer; the Feuhrer is always right." I say that the proper place for the people who write those articles is in Germany.
In regard to the Burma Road, I want to ask this question. I do not think the House yet realises the tremendous danger in which both China and ourselves are, as a result of the events of the last 48 hours. I can well imagine that the Prime Minister could not possibly give us any detailed description of military movements, but I want to put a point to the House which is, I think, in a great many minds and is certainly in my mind, as one who was for seven years in the India Office. I want to know what has happened to those large bodies of troops that have been raised in India. We have been told, again and again, that over 1,000,000 men have been raised in India and we know that a comparatively small number are serving on other fronts. I say that the message which should go out from this country to the Government of India is that they must strain every nerve to preserve that vital road to China. If we do not do so, the injury that will come to our prestige and morale in Asia will be at least as great as that which has come to it from the fall of Singapore. I do make a most earnest appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give us, if possible before the close of the Debate to-day, some information on that point. The great generalissimo of the Chinese people, Chiang Kai-Shek is, at this moment, still in India and it must be that discussions have been going on with him. I want it to be put to the Government of India that it is as much a vital part of their duty to hold that road at all

costs, as it is to hold the North-West Frontier.

The Prime Minister: I will, with the permission of the House, answer the Noble Lord's question. I would not dream of discussing the matter to which he referred, or the movements or disposition of troops for some time, certainly not in Public Session.

Earl Winterton: I did not ask for that.

Captain Anstruther-Gray: Without pursuing the question of the Far East, may I ask the Prime Minister one question about the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau Inquiry? What type of court will inquire into this matter? I think the House would be agreed that the Inquiry must take place in camera and that very likely no report may be published, but I feel that the people would be comforted if the Inquiry were to be conducted by, perhaps, a High Court Judge, rather than that it should be a departmental inquiry, conducted solely by the Services, in which case there is always the danger that people will think that things are being whitewashed and glossed over. I wonder whether the Prime Minister would answer that question?

The Prime Minister: It is not a departmental inquiry, but I have already said that I do not propose to give information about its composition.

Captain Anstruther-Gray: Does the Prime Minister really believe that that will satisfy the people of this country?

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: I came into the House with the conviction that it would be the Prime Minister's intention to discuss to-day the very grave events of the last few days, and I must admit that I am a little disturbed at the idea that this discussion is to be postponed. I do not wish to quarrel with the decision to which the Prime Minister has come in asking the House to postpone discussion of these matters, supported as he is by the right hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Labour Opposition. I do think that the House is entitled to know, and to know now, if this matter is to be postponed, when that discussion is to take place. I cannot conceive that it is in the public interest that it should be postponed for any long period. If it is to be postponed for two or three days, I do not think any of us


would feel entitled to quarrel with that, but I, frankly, do not see what the advantages of postponement are to be. What we are concerned with to-day is not to find fault with individuals. There is no question of disunity in the country. There is no question of the unity of the House behind the Prime Minister. The Vote which he received so unanimously the other day shows that, but what is at stake now is the whole conduct of the war. What we are concerned with is the whole conduct of the war and those conducting the war, and the House of Commons is the proper place for that to be discussed, and I suggest that if the matter is to be put off, we should have a definite undertaking that there will be a discussion, at least not later than the First Sitting Day of next week.

Sir Percy Harris: I appreciate the attitude of the Prime Minister and his difficulty in making a statement on the particular incidents with which we are most concerned, but I would impress upon him the fact that the public outside are immensely disturbed and that these incidents have such reactions on the welfare of the Commonwealth that they would like the House of Commons, as the place where such problems should be discussed, to have a full Debate. I appreciate that there are alternatives. One is for us to go on to-day and have a desultory Debate, and, as I understand it, the Prime Minister is opposed to that course. The second is to have a Debate on another day this week. I understand that he takes great exception to that proposal. On the other hand, I agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite; I am convinced that the country would resent an indefinite postponement of a full-dress Debate. If the Prime Minister will say on an early day, say, the first Sitting Day in the next series of Sitting Days, I think the information would satisfy the House, which would be content to go on with the next Business, but an indefinite Debate, in the light of the fact that the Inquiry which the Prime Minister has promised us is to be in secret and that the composition of the tribunal is not to be revealed, will, I believe, cause grave discontent. The Prime Minister is a good House of Commons man. He has the confidence of the country. He need not be afraid of his position—there is no rival for his post—

but let him listen to the counsel of his friends. We are a democratic country, and there is a real feeling—it is not merely in the Press; I do not want to overrate the importance of the Press, but everywhere I have been I have made contacts, and they have all been looking forward to a Debate in the House of Commons—that some of these real mysteries, some of these problems which are so difficult to explain to the public, should be thrashed out in the one and only place where they can be thrashed out.

Sir Hugh O'Neill: I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton) that it would not be politic to press the Prime Minister at this moment to have a Debate this week. All I want to say is a word or two with regard to the passage of the German ships unhindered—perhaps not unhindered, but at least undestroyed—up the Channel last week. I rather felt, when the Prime Minister was speaking, that perhaps he hardly realised the immense amount of public anxiety which there is with regard to this matter. It may be true, as he says, that as a result of it German naval dispositions are more favourable to us than they were before, but even if that is so, it will not allay public anxiety. There is just one question I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman. Apart from this secret Inquiry which is to take place, is there to be an examination into our general naval dispositions at the time when this episode occurred, and, if as a result of the Inquiry, any blame is attached to any individual will the public be informed of it in the same way as they were informed by the Government of the United States after the inquiry that took place into the Pearl Harbour disaster?

Sir William Davison: The Prime Minister in his statement said that one of the advantages possessed by the German admiral in deciding when to take the risk of taking his ships from Brest, and whether to take them up the Channel or round Southern Ireland, was that he had the opportunity of choosing the weather which would be favourable. In that connection, is my right hon. Friend aware that the Germans are in daily receipt from their Legation in Dublin of information as to the weather conditions in the British Isles, and in view of the increased danger to the safety of this country which this episode of tak-


ing the German ships up the Channel indicates, is it not about time that the British Government took some steps to prevent the operation of a German wireless transmitter from their Legation in Dublin, which daily conveys reports not only of the weather but of all that is going on in the British Isles to Germany? Is he further aware not only of the danger to this country but also of the loss of prestige we are suffering by having this wireless station in the midst of the British Isles?

Mr. Bellenger: I should not have taken part in this Debate had it not been for a remark made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne). He seemed to suggest that we could divorce any future Debate from persons and policy. I doubt it very much. After all, the whole conduct of this war depends on the right kind of leaders and the right kind of policy, and I go so far as to suggest to the Prime Minister—and I think he must be aware of it—that there is in the country, and indeed in this House at the present moment, a feeling that we have not got the right kind of persons to direct this war to a satisfactory conclusion. I only wish to say to the Prime Minister, whom I may say I have supported when he was not the Prime Minister—never once did I vote against the Service Estimates, and I would like him to bear it in mind at the moment, when I may have to criticise his conduct of the war—that he must take account of the feeling that is growing in this House and in the country that we have not got the right kind of Government. I hope that will come out very fully in the Debate when we have it, and that no hon. Member, whatever his party allegiance may be, will be afraid to express it, even, if the Prime Minister insists upon it, by going to a Division.

Mr. A. Bevan: Would it not be to the convenience of the House if the Prime Minister could indicate what his intentions are, because we are neither having a Debate nor are we not having a Debate? It would be very much more to the point if the Prime Minister could tell the House when he proposes to give the House an opportunity of having a full-dress Debate on this matter; and may I implore him to be as resilient as he sometimes claims he is and to realise that it is our duty to express the anxieties of the country in this House?

The Prime Minister: I certainly had thought that sometime during the next series of Sitting Days would be appropriate for a Debate. It is not very long since we had a three-day Debate. [An HON. MEMBER: "Something has happened since then."] If hon. Gentlemen would be so kind as to read carefully what I said, they will see how very clearly—as clearly as I could without giving away military information—I indicated how grave the position was in the Far East, and how terrible are the forfeits that have been and will be exacted from us. I certainly feel that the House should have a Debate; there is not the slightest reason to object to a Debate; on the contrary, I will give every facility for a Debate and for a Division. The House is absolutely master. If its confidence is not extended to the Government, if it does not believe that the war is being well managed, if it thinks it can make arrangements which would lead to the war being better managed, it is the duty and the right of the House to express its opinion, as it can do in a proper and a constitutional manner.
Therefore, as I say, I certainly consider that a matter of this kind should be the subject of a Debate, but at the present time I have absolutely no news which has not been published in the Press—no news of any importance or interest. I do not quite know when the news will be received, but still I think that during the course of the next series of Sitting Days there should be a Debate on the subject, and I hope it will be a long Debate. I do not know whether it can all take place in public. I am absolrtely certain that I could say things to this House which would arouse hon. Members to the seriousness of the situation and to the way in which the dangers may be aggravated by action we may take or fail to take, but I do not think I could say them in public at all. Let us say then that there will be a Debate; I was only deprecating that it should be held now, as it seems, in a mood of panic. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I think that a very excited Debate taking place here today, while our minds are oppressed by what has happened, may easily have the effect of causing a bad and very unfavourable reaction all over the world. That is what I say. I stick to it. I think it would have been a bad thing to have had a


Debate to-day. I certainly do not think I could undertake to prepare a full statement on this matter again by the third Sitting Day.
I must ask the House to realise the enormous burdens falling on me, not by my work as Minister of Defence, but by repeated and constant attendance on this House, which I never expected I should have to face, but which I will face. But I think I should be more prepared to make a statement next week. I hope that some information will come in which will enable me to make it. I beg that the Debate shall be absolutely frank, measured only by regard to the public interest. I beg that it shall be searching; I beg, I implore hon. Gentlemen—their manhood and honour require it—that they shall give effect to their opinions.
There is one point I have been asked about the Inquiry. It is quite true that I said I did not propose to give information about the Inquiry. I still think it would have been better that it should have been an Inquiry conducted for the purpose of giving information to the people responsible for carrying on the war, but as the question has been asked, I do not mind changing what I said on that subject, in deference to the wishes expressed by the House. This has already been decided; what I propose is that Mr. Justice Bucknill should preside and that Air Chief Marshal Sir Edgar Ludlow-Hewitt and Vice-Admiral Sir Hugh Binney should represent the two Services concerned.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Are there any exact terms of reference?

The Prime Minister: Their scope is on those points which I indicated in my statement. I hope that the Inquiry will be quickly conducted. Of course, if anyone is found to have been guilty of a dereliction of duty, obviously disciplinary action will follow. Certainly, in that case, I am sure it will be possible to make some statement to the House, but I do not want this Inquiry, which deals with secret matters of defence around these Islands upon which our lives and safety depend, to be subject to a fought-out discussion and wrangling and intricate Debate in the same way as has been done in time of peace, when a submarine like "Thetis" was lost. I think it would be a great pity to do that. I hope the House

will realise there is a very great desire to do as well as possible among all those who are serving them, whether in the House or in the Forces.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I am very much indebted to the Prime Minister for meeting the House in the way he has done in what he has just said. I am very glad he has consented to give us the particulars he has done. I think he owed it to the House. With regard to the Debate, I think, after consultation with my hon. Friends, that if we have a debate next week, that will also meet the case satisfactorily. Perhaps I might be allowed to say one thing. The Prime Minister said something which I think was misunderstood. I should like the Prime Minister to take the opportunity of explaining that he did not mean what I think was thought in parts of the House. When he used the word "panic", I think the context of his remarks seemed to suggest that there was panic in this House or, at any rate, in the country. I am quite sure that the Prime Minister himself did not envisage that, because it is quite unnecessary for me to assure him that there is no panic whatever in this House and I do not think that there is any panic in the country. I feel convinced that what he had in his mind was that there might be panic in other parts of the world, and I hope that my interpretation of the Prime Minister's remarks is that which he would put upon them himself.

The Prime Minister: I gladly give the assurance that I was not imputing panic to any Members of this House, but I think, none the less, that a Debate held to-day in excitement, and pierced with charges and counter-charges interchanged across the House at this moment of great anxiety and distress would undoubtedly be contributing to what I might have called the "rattling" process which is going on in some parts of the Press, not only in the Press of this country, but freely telegraphed both to Australia and the United States, which tends to give a feeling of insecurity, which I am quite sure the House would agree is detrimental.

Mr. Erskine-Hill: In view of the very real public feeling and anxiety in this matter. I wish to say how much some of my friends and myself are grateful to the Prime Minister for having appointed so authoritative and


impartial an Inquiry as this. I think we would like to emphasise the fact that [he House is anxious for a Debate as soon as it can be arranged, but we are prepared to leave that to the Prime Minister.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: May I say this for the Prime Minister's consideration: Would it not be possible to deal with this question of the operations in the Channel before we tackle the whole question of the conduct of the war? Members will have observed a deliberate attempt to cause trouble between two branches of our fighting Services. An hon. and gallant Member of this House of high rank, who ought to know better, has done his level best to cause a quarrel where no quarrel exists. This has been ably seconded by the Beaverbrook Press and Members of this House. Everybody in the two Services concerned knows there is no cause for quarrel whatever. It is only ambitious politicians who are deliberately attempting to cause trouble and drive a wedge between two branches of the fighting Services. Therefore, I think it is desirable that we should tackle the Channel operation as a separate matter and not as part of the general conduct of the war, so that once and for all the House and the country outside may be informed that this so-called quarrel does not exist, never has existed, and that the two Services concerned are working together in complete amity and co-operation. I do think that the hon. and gallant Member of high rank to whom I have referred should come down to this House and justify some of the most damaging statements he has been making.

The Prime Minister: I am afraid I cannot undertake that the Inquiry shall be completed before the Debate takes place. When the Inquiry was set up last week, I asked that it should be completed, if possible, within a week. I understand that it began its work yesterday. Therefore, it should not take long. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) about the good relations existing between the Air Force and the Navy.

Mr. Hopkinson: The Inquiry, necessarily, will deal with things which cannot be disclosed to this House—Service details which do not intimately concern this House. What actually happened is, of course, perfectly well known in the Services concerned, and it

has to be concealed from the general public. Hence, no particular advantage is to be gained by postponing the Debate till the Inquiry is concluded.

Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: Could not the Prime Minister relieve himself of some of his great burden by appointing a Minister of Defence, and could he not create a War Cabinet on exactly the same lines as that created in the last war by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George)? In his wisdom, he created a War Cabinet of Members without any departmental responsibilities, and they carried us successfully through the last war.

Mr. Gallacher: When the Prime Minister spoke on the last occasion, he referred to a saint, whose name he had forgotten, who refused to do the right thing because the devil had advised him. I am certain that the Prime Minister would listen to advice from the devil, but not to advice from the Member for West Fife. However, I will try to break down his resistance. I will offer two suggestions. During the week-end I was among the workers. I was among shop stewards and other workers at mass meetings and in the streets. I can tell the Prime Minister that the feeling is terrible. Among the mass of the people there is no confidence in the Government as a Government. It is not enough for the Prime Minister to say that the House of Commons has the responsibility for changing the Government if it does not like the Government. He is more responsible than anybody else for bringing the Government into harmony with the desires of the people. The Prime Minister said that it was a crime to create disunity among the people. He referred to those who are trying to disrupt the Government. It may be possible to create more disunity among the people and to destroy their morale, by trying to defend the indefensible. Will the Prime Minister take note of that? He cannot defend the personnel of the Government. Do not let him talk about millstones around the necks of people until he gets rid of the millstones around his own neck. I see that the Prime Minister has gone. I am sorry he has not been patient enough to listen to this.
The Prime Minister has said that the strategic intention was the defeat of the Nazi army in Europe. Before we have a


discussion, there are two things that he should decide. One is to come to that discussion with proposals for a great reconstruction of the Government. I see that other hon. Members are going now. The Fuehrer goes: the yes-men follow. Is it any wonder that we are losing the war: is it any wonder the Empire is lost, when we have such types as that? They are simply crawlers. It was the Prime Minister's own lieutenant, now the Minister of Information, who said that the people on the other side did not deserve to be dignified by the name of yes-men, because they were only nodders, the poorest specimens he had ever seen. If the strategic line is the defeat of the Nazi army, the sooner the leader of this country has immediate personal discussions with the leader of the Soviet Union the better it will be, in order that wide strategic plans can be worked out for saving Europe. It is no good the Prime Minister talking of the preparation of America for 1944 or 1945. The future of Europe and this country is being now decided on the Soviet-German front. If the plans now being worked out by Stalin and his colleagues are successful, the future is saved. If not, we are faced with a terrible situation. Has the Prime Minister nothing to say in the formulation of those plans? The Prime Minister should come forward with plans for reconstructing the Government and for having immediate personal contact with the leader of the Soviet Union and with the leader of the great popular army of China, General Chiang Kai Shek.

Major Lyons: Will the Lord Privy Seal, in discussing this matter with the Prime Minister, bear in mind the grave issues involved and the number of back-benchers who want to take part in the Debate? Will he suggest that not less than three days should be allotted for the Debate, in order that everybody who desires to speak should have ample opportunity, and would he also consider extending the time of the sittings, as was done on the last occasion?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): I will convey those points to my right hon. Friend.

Motion, "That this House do now adjourn," by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1941.

CLASS IV.

BROADCASTING (OVERSEAS SERVICES).

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,300,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for a grant in aid of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Mr. Thurtle): I think it would meet the wishes of the Committee if, in moving this Supplementary Estimate, I outlined at the outset the principles on which the B.B.C. is financed in war time. Those principles are laid down in the Supplementary Agreement of February, 1940, which is set out in Cmd. Paper 6177, between the Postmaster-General and the Minister of Information and the Corporation, supplementing the main Agreement between the Postmaster-General and the Corporation. Under the terms of this Supplementary Agreement, the arrangement by which the Corporation received a specified percentage of the receipts of wireless receiving licences ceased on 31st March, 1940. As from that date, the Minister of Information is due to pay to the Corporation an annual sum such as from year to year the Treasury, on representations from the Corporation to the Minister, shall approve as being sufficient for the services provided by the Corporation. The "representations" made by the Corporation under the Supplemental Agreement include the presentation, in the Autumn of each year, of estimates of the Corporation's expenditure during the following financial year. These Estimates, after examination in the Ministry, are the basis upon which the amount to be provided in the Parliamentary estimate of the Broadcasting Vote is approved by the Treasury. Proposals for the improvement or extension of the Corporation's services are subject to examination and accept-


ance by the Ministry and to approval by the Treasury. Under the war-time arrangements the Vote for broadcasting from 1940 onwards has been in the form of a grant-in-aid of the Corporation. Instalments of the grant are paid to the Corporation by the Ministry from time to time during the year, the total payment from the grant being adjusted as necessary, with Treasury approval, in the light of the Corporation's actual net expenditure, as finally ascertained.
The amount granted by Parliament under the Broadcasting Vote in 1941 was £5,600,000, this amount having been approved by the Treasury on the basis of detailed estimates of the Corporation's expenditure during the year. Revised estimates of the expenditure recently prepared by the Corporation showed that their total expenditure for the year would exceed the grant of £5,600,000 by a very substantial amount, and the total expenditure is likely to be of the order of £8,000,000, that is, an excess of £2,400,000 over the original amount. Of this excess of £2,400,000 the Corporation had received, or sought the Minister's approval for, an amount of about £1,200,000. The Treasury, on the Ministry's recommendation, decided that the provision in the Supplementary Estimate should be restricted to this amount, with some further provision approximating to £100,000 for new developments which might arise during the remainder of the year, thus making a provision of £1,300,000 in all. The remainder of the excess expenditure over the original grant does not enter into this Supplementary Estimate at all. As regards this further excess expenditure, the Corporation has been informed that it will have to seek the Minister's approval before any payment can be made to the Corporation in respect of it. Any such payment will be made from the next year's grant-in-aid.
Of the amount of £1,300,000 asked for in the Supplementary Estimate now under discussion, £400,000 was expenditure by the Corporation on improvements and major extensions rendered possible by the availability of further broadcasting transmitters brought into service in February, 1941. These increased facilities have enabled the B.B.C. during the past year to consolidate and extend its overseas services at the request of Parliament and in accordance with Parliament's desire that the nation's propaganda effort

should be strengthened. A second sum of £400,000 is the initial expenditure upon a scheme for the further expansion of the services. The bulk of the additional expenditure in respect of this expansion will fall in 1942–1943 and subsequent years. The remainder of the Estimate of £1,300,000 relates in the main to various individual measures for the development of overseas services approved by the Ministry during the year, and there is a margin also for such further developments as may prove to be desirable before the end of the financial year.
I think the Committee will be interested in some of the facts connected with the expansion of the B.B.C. overseas services since the outbreak of the war, and I think, too, that, in fairness to the B.B.C. itself, publicity should be given to the magnitude and complexity of these overseas services. Take, first, the question of expansion. In September, 1939, the B.B.C. was broadcasting in 10 languages, including English. By the end of December, 1941, the weekly overseas schedule included bulletins and programmes in 41 languages, including English. The staff, of course, has been increased accordingly. The growth in the number of foreign languages in which broadcasts have been given in the overseas services since the beginning of the war is really remarkable. In September, 1939, there were nine languages so employed; in December, 1939, 16; in December, 1940, 32; and in December, 1941, 40. In passing, I might be permitted to say that fluency in all these 40 foreign languages is not claimed either by my right hon. Friend or myself.
The number of broadcasting hours devoted to foreign languages has also greatly increased. In September, 1939, it was 44 hours a week. By December, 1941, it had risen to 231 hours per week. Overseas broadcasts in English have also greatly increased. At the outbreak of the war the Ministry was broadcasting its overseas services in English for 129 hours per week. By the end of December, 1941, the broadcasts in English occupied 168 hours a week. So far as news bulletins are concerned, there is the same story of expansion. The B.B.C. is now broadcasting news bulletins in its overseas services at the rate of 97 a day. There are 15 daily bulletins in English, of which three are for European and 12 for Empire distances. Naturally this great increase of activity has entailed an increase in


staff. The Committee may like to know that the staff on 1st January, 1941, numbered 1033 and by the 1st January, 1942, 1609.
Perhaps I may also give the Committee some little information about the respective services, and I will take first the European services. These consist of two parallel services. One is broadcast for 18½ hours in Central and Western European languages and the other for 6¼ hours a day in Spanish, Portuguese, Scandinavian and Balkan languages. There are no fewer than 22 languages used in these services. An important aim of this European service is to intensify its impact by means of specialised broadcasting designed to attract particular audiences. The whole service, with this aim in view, is becoming increasingly specialised and I should like to give the Committee a few examples of the special programmes now being broadcast. There are two daily programmes addressed to the German forces, a programme every evening for German seamen, a programme for German Catholics, a programme addressed to the Italian forces, a special programme to sustain and encourage our allied Dutch merchant seamen, a series of programmes projecting life in Britain to our French audiences, and reviews of English books and plays for Swedish listeners. This kind of broadcast needs to be of the highest possible quality. There is ample evidence that Britain is judged in Europe by its radio transmissions. If these are second-rate they do harm rather than good. Specialised broadcasting needs specialists to carry it out, and accordingly the B.B.C. has been at pains to find the very best men it can for the job.
The Committee would like to know whether these broadcasts are being listened to or not. I am glad to say there is evidence that, in spite of the severest penalties and in spite of jamming by the enemy, British broadcasts are reaching the homes of listeners in all the countries of Europe. There is a mass of evidence to this effect and I will give the Committee one or two examples. I will take first what Dr. Goebbels wrote a month or two ago in "Das Reich":
One might assume that British news was completely discredited in neutral eyes. On the contrary, Swedish and Swiss papers gleefully present their lies day after day, and only give our factual reports the same space when they

cannot possibly be contested any more. Even among us"—
he meant the German people—
there are still people who will not learn. Two death sentences and a number of sentences of forced labour, passed quite recently, prove this.
Reports are being received from Germany that there is now a warden who goes from house to house to detect and stop B.B.C. broadcasts. In one report a small town of 25,000 inhabitants is mentioned in which there have been no fewer than 200 denunciations of persons for listening to the broadcasts of the B.B.C. Eight of these people who dared to lister publicly in a restaurant were prosecuted. If it is like this in a small, comparatively unknown place what must it be like in the big towns of the Rhineland? The same thing applies to the occupied territories. In Poland, after more than two years of fruitless efforts to stamp out black-listening—that is, listening to ourselves—the authorities have been reduced, according to a Polish newspaper, to providing printed cards for radio set owners to hang upon their radio sets. This is what the printed cards say:
Remember! Do not listen to foreign broadcasts. It is a crime against the safety of our race. By the Fuehrer's orders, you will be severely punished.
In Poland more than a score of newspapers are produced out of material supplied over the radio by the B.B.C., and we must remember that the people who produce these newspapers have to listen-in from retreats and at the risk of their lives. In Czechoslovakia there is a report which says that:
People who are almost too poor to buy bread, have now a radio. … A man told me, 'the stomach is hungry but the soul still more so—London is the only thing to feed the soul.'
We received the following from a Danish correspondent:
We are working in our gardens and fighting German propaganda. Thank God for the B.B.C., otherwise we should never know the truth.
From unoccupied France we got this message:
Our only window to the exterior is the British broadcast and the French broadcast from London to which we are listening secretly in our homes in spite of jamming.
From occupied France we got this message:
We are very privileged to, live here whets it is possible to listen-in to London. It is our comfort and our strength.


I will give one other quotation and it is from Oslo:
Thank goodness that we have the B.B.C. … If we did not have the B.B.C. to give us the truth despair might be reigning here now.
Finally, I wish to mention what the enemy controlled Belgrade radio said about our broadcasting:
London still does not leave us alone. … Whilst all nations have turned away from London's criminal appeals, the Serbs in the woods are the only fools in Europe who still obey London.
That is generally typical of our efficacy. I would take up a little more time in order to give some details about our Overseas service and about the Empire service in English. The Overseas Service Division is responsible for three main services. There is the Empire division consisting of a service in English, broadcast for 21 hours a day, covering the greater part of the world, and the parallel service broadcast of 2¼ hours a day in no less than 12 different languages. There is the Near East service which broadcasts for 3¼ hours a day in Near East languages. There is the Latin-American service which broadcasts for 4¾ hours a day in the special form of Spanish and Portuguese spoken in South America.
Then there is the Empire service in English. This service consists of transmissions confined to what are known as primary audiences in all parts of the Empire, at convenient listening hours according to local time. There are four main services—Pacific, Eastern, African and North African, each with primary audiences in the zones concerned and secondary audiences in other parts of the world. It is a feature of war-time broadcasting that programmes in these services are specialised as far as possible to suit the various groups of listeners for which they are primarily intended—in the African service, for example, to the South Africans in Afrikaans, the English in Southern Rhodesia, African and British people in the colonies, and to the various, sections of the British and other troops in the Near East. In the shaping of these specialised programmes the B.B.C. has had the assistance of expert staffs of sister broadcasting organisations in Canada, Australia, South Africa, India and elsewhere. The Empire service goes out on the short-wave, but in all countries listeners to short-wave broadcasts are less numerous comparatively than those who listen to local stations on the medium-

wave. The re-broadcasting of Empire broadcasts by local stations is therefore of paramount importance in increasing the size of the audiences. A measure of the acceptability of the Empire programmes, according to the news bulletin, is to be found in the extent to which they are regularly re-broadcast. Re-broadcasting has proved very important during the course of the war, and I will give the Committee one or two facts about it.
In Australia, the A.B.C. regularly takes three news bulletins daily, a daily radio news reel programme and five talks a week. In Canada, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation takes two news bulletins in English and one in French daily, a Canadian news reel daily, 15 talks a week and a half-hour programme about Canadian troops in this country daily. India takes one news bulletin daily and 17 talks a week. New Zealand regularly takes seven news bulletins and 16 talks a week. South Africa takes three news bulletins in English and one in Afrikaans daily, 19 talks weekly and five entertainment programmes weekly. One or more of the B.B.C. news bulletins are re-broadcast daily in over a score of countries. The local re-diffusion service in Barbados, the Gold Coast, Malta, Nigeria, Sierra Leone consist almost entirely of programmes broadcast in the Empire service. In the United States news bulletins are made available by the Columbia broadcasting system, and over 130 independant stations re-broadcast items from the Empire programmes.
I think I have given sufficient information of the activities of the B.B.C. which are covered by this Vote. I apologise for the length of time I have taken, but I hope the Committee will feel with me that, in justice to the B.B.C., it was necessary that something of the story of the tremendous programme of propaganda efforts overseas for which that Corporation is responsible should be brought into the light of day. It only remains for me to say that my right hon. Friend is here, ready to deal with any questions or criticisms which may arise in the course of the Debate. [An HON. MEMBER: "He is not here"]. Well, he will be here in a short time. In the meantime I am here, and I will do my best to meet any points.

Commander King-Hall: I do not intend to take up the time of the Committee for more than a few minutes. We have listened to a very interesting


account of the expansion of the B.B.C., and I think from what we have heard, and from what I know, a very creditable expansion as regards quantity has taken place. I am sure, however, that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that there is no activity in which quality is of greater importance than in broadcasting and that the mere matter of quantity does not necessarily get us very far. Before I come to one or two of the larger issues which I think the Committee should have in mind, there is one point I would like to deal with and get out of the way, namely, the question of the ordinary news bulletins on the home front—

The Chairman: I am afraid that the hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot raise that on this Vote. If he will look at it, he will see that this is a Supplementary Estimate confined entirely to Empire and foreign broadcasting.

Commander King-Hall: I apologise, and I will pass on to my next point, which is the function of the B.B.C. as an instrument of political warfare. I need not detain the Committee by repeating what I have said before in this House—my conviction that the use of the B.B.C. as one of the chief instruments of political warfare has been neglected in the past and, in my opinion, is being largely neglected to-day. Undoubtedly, more has been happening than was happening a year ago, but the important question which the Committee should bear in mind is that not only should we decide what is to be said over foreign transmissions, but it is extremely difficult for anybody to find out what is being said. That raises a very important question. In so far as one can, I have endeavoured to make a private arrangement to have these broadcasts listened to, but they are extremely numerous, and it is difficult for a private person to get other than a partial picture of what is being said. Although I hold strong views as to what should be said, I do not want to put my personal view forward to-day, because I recognise that there are other hon. Members who, in some respects, hold diametrically opposite views of what should be said to the German people.
I want to put the issue on a broader basis by stating that the House of Commons should know what is being said on its behalf to the German people. At

present Members do not know, except for bits and pieces. It so happens that I do approve of some of the things which have been said recently to the German people, but I must say in all fairness that I know that other hon. Members would disapprove strongly. The danger I foresee is that a day may come when we shall be told that certain things have been said to the German people on behalf of this House and the House may not implement the policy. We ought to know what is being said on our behalf, otherwise we may be put in a very embarrassing position. So I would ask the Department to give consideration to the question of whether some steps cannot be taken to make the House of Commons, at any rate, acquainted with the general line which is being pursued in these talks. I cannot myself detect a particular policy in the talks to which I have listened; I find there is a great deal of contradiction going on, which is not satisfactory. However, there can be general agreement in all parts of the House that what should be said is good, straight news. There may be differences of opinion a bout war aims, but I cannot think there is any difference of opinion on the point that a great concentration of effort should be made to give enemy people accurate and sober news, which at present they do not get. That will build a basis of confidence on which, at some later date, we can build up a statement of war aims.
In conclusion, I want to draw the attention of the Department to the extreme importance at the present time of keeping a very sharp look-out on what the Japanese are doing in political warfare and by means of radio throughout the Far East. I am bound to confess that it is almost impossible for a private Member to discover to what extent we are weighing in with a counter-offensive against the Japanese, but such information as I have been able to obtain gives me the impression that the Japanese are taking political warfare and the use of radio very seriously indeed. There are obvious fields out there from which fruitful action may result unless we take strong and active counter-measures. I hope the B.B.C. has that matter closely in hand.

Captain Sir Ian Fraser: Statements have been made by the Minister and by his predecessors in office which have made it clear that the Governors


of the B.B.C., of whom I have the honour to be one, have not the same measure of control over overseas broadcasts, to Europe in particular, as over the home service, and this has led to particular questions being asked publicly and of me by Members in this House as to what exactly are the functions of the Governors. I had hoped, Sir Dennis, that you might rule that it was in Order that I should discuss them as seen by the Governors themselves, if it was the feeling of the House that they would like to hear any remarks on that subject. I understand that the Governors' fees are, in fact, included in this Estimate, although, as you have already ruled, it is primarily concerned with overseas broadcasts. May I assume, therefore, that you will permit me to discuss the Governors' responsibility and their relationship with the Ministry, which, I think, is a matter of some interest?

The Chairman: I am sorry, but I must disappoint the hon. and gallant Member. It may be that some part of the Governors' salaries is included in the Estimates, but they are not included in the Supplementary Estimates. We must confine this Debate entirely to overseas services.

Mr. Garro Jones: On that point, Sir Dennis, would it not be in Order for the hon. and gallant Member to deal with the functions of the Governors in so far as they are exercised in the supervision of Empire and foreign services and, even, to distinguish between the degree of authority which they exercise in that sphere and the authority which they exercise in the home sphere?

The Chairman: That may be, but this is a matter which must be watched with considerable care. I know the hon. Member's ingenuity, but an attempt to do something which is obviously outside this Vote would be out of Order.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: If my hon. and gallant Friend will discuss the activities of the Government in relation to foreign broadcasting, then we may be able to judge their general functions, if he skates very skilfully on thin ice, which I am sure you, Sir Dennis, will allow him to do.

The Chairman: The hon. Member may infer what he likes from what happens,

but he must allow me to keep the discussion within the limits of the Rules of the House.

Sir I. Fraser: I will do my best to skate on thin ice, and I know, Sir Dennis, that you will call me to Order if go outside the limits. The Government set up an organisation called the Political Warfare Executive. It is not in the interests of public policy to discuss the personnel or the methods which this Executive uses, and my only desire is to show how the setting up of this body has limited and affected the powers and control of the Governors. This body is responsible for political warfare in the widest sense, and broadcasting is only one of the instruments of political warfare. There are many hon. Members who from time to time have said that political warfare should be waged vigorously by all kinds of means not only by broadcasting, but since there are many other ways in which it may be waged, it is desirable, as an administrative matter, that one Governmental organ should decide upon political warfare policy, and, as far as possible, one set of people should decide upon the directions, the directives, and the methods which shall be used. Moreover, it is important that what is broadcast should synchronise with, or at least should not be incompatible with, the impression that is being made upon the enemy's mind by other methods. So it has come about that the control over what shall be said to the enemy or to occupied countries in Europe has ceased to be within the discretion of the Governors of the B.B.C., and has passed to this Governmental organ.
The Governors are still responsible for providing the machinery and the personnel whereby these signals go out to the enemy and to occupied countries. They also feel themselves responsible—and I think the House will approve that they should continue to hold this charge—responsible, in some degree, for calling the attention of the Ministry or of the House to any case in which the integrity of the service is let down by the broadcasting of untruths. The Governors are charged in their capacity at home to be the trustees for Parliament of the integrity of the service, and by integrity they understand that they are asked to be judges of taste in its widest sense and judges as to political fairness. They do not feel that the taking by the Govern


ment of the control of what is said to foreign countries and to occupied countries necessarily excludes them from exercising trusteeship on behalf of this House for the integrity of the service, and I hope hon. Members will affirm that it is their wish that this House, whose trustees the Governors are, should continue to exercise its voice through the Governors in that respect. As regards the Dominion broadcasts, there is not the same degree of control over what is said as in the case of the European broadcasts. The Governors there have all the functions of a board of directors to engage staff and dismiss staff from the top to the bottom, to provide the machinery, to lay down the working conditions, to arrange the necessary liaison between themselves and the Government Departments, and in every way to conduct this great business partly as agent for the Minister, where his control is more severe, but partly having regard to their own discretion, where matters are left to them.
It is particularly one of their functions, as they see it, to be trustees for Parliament in the matter of reports which are sent out of Debates that take place in the House. I feel it would be a great mistake were a Minister of the Crown or his officials to seek to edit the speeches of Members of Parliament or decide which Members' speeches should be broadcast and which should not. Of course, more people listen to the home broadcasts than to the overseas ones, and it is from listening to the home broadcasts that criticism on this matter would arise, but we also broadcast Members' speeches on our overseas services, and I hope you will feel, Sir Dennis, that that brings the discussion so far, at any rate, within the Rules of Order. Were the Government to take over broadcasting in the sense which it has sometimes been suggested they have done, my right hon. Friend or his officials would, in fact, be responsible for determining which Members' speeches should be broadcast or whether anything should be cut out of them. It is not denied that the Minister has, for security reasons, the power to curtail the speeches which are broadcast or to ask that particular sentences which come near to infringing against the security rules should be left out, but he does not, in fact, do that, and I think it is one of the sources of strength

that we have found it possible to set up a corporation which can receive its directions from the Government, where they are needed, and can also exercise that impartial quasi-judicial function which it is the Governors' duty to exercise and which they do exercise.
Hon. Members may ask—indeed, some hon. Members have asked me privately—how one can expect a board of six Governors, appointed by the Crown and capable of being dismissed by the Crown, to be anything but creatures of the Government of the day. It is a fair question, but there seem to me to be two or three answers. In the first place, often in our public life we find men who, although they have had political associations in the past or in a certain sphere, are nevertheless found capable of acting impartially when they are so charged. The Speakership in this House, the mayoralty in a town, and notably the judiciary, are examples where men are drawn from groups, perhaps political groups, but, on being charged with quasi-judicial functions, are able to carry them out with the utmost integrity. I think it is of some importance that we should continue to recognise this trusteeship function which the Board of Governors do in fact exercise. If I have any comment to make about the relations between the Governors and the Government now, it is this. I think we have found by experiment, by success and failure, a means whereby there is the greatest degree of working together between the Corporation and the Ministry, and my only criticism of the position in which the Governors find themselves is this, that we can all be dismissed by the Crown, on the advice of the Prime Minister, at any time. It might be a good thing that all or any of us should be dismissed to-day on some ground of delinquency or other, if cause were shown.

Mr. Ernest Evans: On a point of Order. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is making some most interesting remarks upon a topic in which many hon. Members are interested, but may I ask you, Sir Dennis, with all due respect, whether it is in Order now to raise this matter? I ask for information, as I think a few hon. Members would like to speak on this matter, but I have very grave doubts whether it would be in Order.

The Chairman: I was just on the point of calling the hon. and gallant Member's attention to the fact that the ice to which he referred was getting dangerously thin. It is quite clear that we cannot discuss in this Debate to-day the general relations between the Governors of the B.B.C. and the Crown. The first part of his speech, where he was dealing quite definitely with oversea broadcasts and the powers, or limited powers, which the Governors have in that regard, was in Order, but I certainly could not allow any further Debate on the lines of the hon. and gallant Member's last sentence.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Is it possible for hon. Members now to discuss the junctions of the Governors of the B.B.C.? We have heard a most interesting and illuminating account, to which some of us might take exception, and to which I certainly would take exception on a great many points, but, having heard this very interesting speech from a Governor who happens to be a Member of Parliament, and it might be that no Governor was a Member of Parliament, it looks as if this might be a chance to find out what the Governors are doing. When I ask the Minister of Information a question—for instance, the relations between the Director-General and the Governors—he quite properly said that he was afraid that that was outside his scope. I should like to ask whether the Governors are now doing anything which two years ago they did not do.

The Chairman: Quite obviously the hon. Member is now carrying on the Debate to something against which I have given my Ruling. The Chair cannot have prescience to rule beforehand against what an hon. Member proposes to say, and, therefore, while the Chair cannot stop an hon. Member from saying something which is irrelevant or out of Order, it can, at any rate, stop subsequent speakers from developing the same point.

Mr. Baxter: May I point out that the hon. and gallant Member was just about to explain that the Government as such could dismiss these Governors? Surely, if the Government have these powers and a certain Governor says our foreign broadcasts are very bad, it is not the opinion of the Minister of Information or the Government, and then that particu-

lar Governor comes under the Ruling that he may be dismissed. Surely what the hon. and gallant Member has been saying is closely allied to what we have been discussing?

The Chairman: The hon. Member seems to know far better than I what the hon. and gallant Member intends to say. If he had gone on to say that, I should have risen in the Chair to stop him.

Sir I. Fraser: I am awfully sorry. I did not mean to land you, Sir Dennis, in so much trouble. So far as the oversea services are concerned, it is a matter of some importance to the Governors, notwithstanding whatever may have been said in this House by way of question and answer or public statement by the Minister of Information or his predecessors, that we should feel that it is the wish of this House that the Governors should continue to be trustees for the integrity of the service, whether it be overseas to our Dominions or to Europe. We do not want to go beyond that into the realm of policy, and to what is said to the enemy or occupied countries. We should like to feel that it is our job to see that what is said is true. I must not venture to get back to the question of what would happen if the Governors offended, except to say that if in discharge of his duty in relation to oversea services, any Governor did offend, I wish to warn the House that the Governors could be swept away by act of the Government in spite of the fact that we are said to be trustees for this House. If any change in our position is required, it would be, I think, that it ought to be understood, not for our own protection or our own persona] interest, but rather in the common interest, that we cannot be swept away without reference to this House whose trustees we are.

Commander King-Hail: The hon. and gallant Member says "trustees." Does he mean trustees on behalf of this House, and irrespective of whether there are any Governors who are Members of this House?

Sir I. Fraser: Yes, Sir. This phrase "sureties to the public and Parliament" or "trustees to the public and Parliament for the integrity and high standard of the services" is not an invention of mine, but is a dictum which was laid


down by the highest quarter. It was given in this House by our present Minister in answer to a Question in which he sought to define what are the Governors' functions. He mentioned that as one of their most important functions.
May I turn to oversea services for just one moment? The hon. Member who opened the Debate gave particulars of some of the hours—the increasing hours and increasing broadcasts which had taken place. He also mentioned how these broadcasts were sent out to the ends of the earth on short waves, which have a faculty of travelling all over the world, and are picked up in the Dominions and in the Colonies upon local receivers, many of which have been designed by the B.B.C., and are rebroadcast on more acceptable wavelengths to the local populations. That is an extremely valuable service, and I only mention it to underline what the hon. member said about it. The relationship which exists between us and the Colonies and oversea broadcasting units and corporations is one to which we pay the very greatest importance, and which forms a very real part of our public relations policy. The very proper limitations which have been put upon the Debate make it impossible for me to raise some of the other points, but let us hope, if this matter is interesting to the House, another opportunity will arise.

Mr. G. Strauss: I would like to sympathise with the hon. and gallant Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) and to congratulate him on the remarkably successful way in which he managed to skate over a great deal of the thin ice. He did not go as far as he wanted, but I am full of admiration for his attempt. There is only one comment which I wish to make upon his speech, and that is to express my disagreement with his view that the Governors should be in any way responsible to this House or the country for our political warfare or foreign propaganda. I think it is essential, in order to safeguard the interests of the House and the country, that those people responsible for our foreign propaganda, which is an important political weapon, should be Ministers of the Crown directly responsible to this House. I do not see how any independent body, however admirable, can take on that responsibility. We must have someone who is

a Minister whom we can attack for bad foreign propaganda or praise if we think the propaganda is very good. It is really impossible for us to attack some outside body with whom we have no contact.
May I, in passing, support very strongly the plea put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Ormskirk (Commander King-Hall) that our foreign propaganda should be available, if not to members of the public, at any rate to their representatives in this House? I think it is absolutely essential that we should be able to check up and criticise what is being said, and I hope steps will be taken—I understand certain steps have been taken—to see that in future all political propaganda and news bulletins should be available for scrutiny by Members of this House. I should like to add a plea, which I know will get a negative response, because I have put it so often to the Minister and I could never understand his attitude, that the information delivered to enemy or enemy-occupied countries in the form of leaflets should also be available to Members of the House. The enemy know what we are saying. Why we should not know what is being told on our behalf I cannot understand. I hope the matter can be at least reconsidered.
I really rose to ask a question about our political warfare in Germany, namely, why the character of the workers' programme has recently been so completely altered. I understand that quite recently it has been decided, temporarily at any rate, that the workers' programme should remain in name but that in fact no workers' news or information should be given out but only general news. If that decision is confirmed, I think it will be a tragedy and a very great mistake. In political as in other fouls of warfare one seeks out one's most effective targets. There is no group of people in Germany who will more readily accept news from abroad—talks from foreign workers, contracts from trade unionists in other countries—than workers, in German factories. Most of them are elderly people The young men are largely in the Army. They have enormous loyalty to their old trade unions. They were very keen trade unionists, and they must still have very strong feelings about freedom and rights, particularly the rights of association that they had under the old Weimar Republic. In the past they had strong international feelings. They were immensely anxious to


co-operate with workers in other lands. There has been going on for a very long time an admirable programme from the workers in this country to those in Germany. It has been a 35-minute programme on Monday and Thursday evenings. Prominent workers here, trade unionists, have spoken as trade unionists to trade unionists and Labour men to Labour men, giving information as to what is happening in the unions and what the Labour movement is doing, the functions of the Labour party in the House of Commons and so on. Miners have spoken to miners, engineers to engineers, and shipyard workers to shipyard workers.
Some people may say that this is political information, biased and not general. It is one man speaking, maybe from a political, certainly from an industrial, point of view, but that is just the sort of stuff we want. If we are to make any use of this political warfare it must be by appealing to the working people of Germany and to the instincts and feelings which they have most keenly, and which can best be appealed to by working people in this country speaking as working people and not just the ordinary official news bulletins, admirable as many of them are. An attempt was made to suspend this valuable bit of information broadcasting a few months ago, and I believe it was considered, and the decision was to continue it. These talks were exceedingly effective. They were, of course, independent. The speaker did not say, "I am expressing the views of the Government or of the country," but "I am speaking as a Labour man. My view is that in this country certain things ought to be changed, as in yours." A chord had been struck between the workers of the two countries which can be done in no other way. I should like to know whether the decision to give no more specific workers' stuff than appears in the ordinary news programme is final. I should like the Minister to go into the matter personally, because it is of the utmost importance, and if it is final, will he tell us why this vitally important and by far the most effective bit of broadcasting going out from this country has been stopped. If it has really been finally stopped it is a matter which should rouse the interest of very large numbers of Members. I am sure it should rouse the interest of the whole Labour movement when they understand what has happened, and I

think it would have the opposition of most people in the country.

Mr. Pickthorn: I did not really quite understand part of the hon. Member's argument. I think there is a great deal to be said for the workers' broadcasts, and I was not aware that they had been diminished, but when he spoke of the indispensability of the Labour movement here being put by the Ministry of Information in direct communication with the Labour movement in Germany, I am not quite sure whether his intention was that there should be other days in the week when other parties should appeal to their opposite numbers, in so far as there are opposite numbers.

Mr. G. Strauss: In the common cause, certainly.

Mr. Pickthorn: That certainly has not been done at all yet. We had May Day devoted to Labour speakers addressing Labour listeners in Germany. I never heard of Primrose Day being lumded over to the Primrose League, or Empire Day to the junior Imperial League. It may be that it would be better if more of our propaganda were given to different British parties for addressing listeners in Germany and that it should not all be conducted by the Government; but that is opening up a very much larger question, which has really not yet been considered by most Members opposite. I speak under some disadvantage as compared with those whose prejudices are on the Left. They generally assume that if some political recipe which has been divulged to them by the Deity or the spirit of the race or materialist dialectics, could be put into effect, then everything would be right and we should all be happy and should be all on Front Benches somewhere or other. The difficulty with those whose prejudices are on the Right that they do not attach that degree of importance to political action and find it more difficult to get excited about it. In particular I do not believe that what is absurdly called political warfare is anything like so important as is frequently claimed. Nobody is very expert on that, and anyone who has any expertness at all is generally out of date.
I, for my sins and whatever my disqualifications, was adviser to the War Office on internal conditions in Germany


in 1918. I suppose I knew as much as anybody here knew about what was going on there and the effect that our propaganda was having in Germany. I had not then and I have not now the least doubt that our propaganda had no effect at all except when it came immediately after victory. It is true that everybody said afterwards that it had an enormous effect. That is one of the reasons why we got into this war as and when we did. The evidence on which that was alleged is nearly all nonsense. After the Great Armada Queen Elizabeth said, "God blew with His wind," and Philip II. said, "The devil was in it." It suited both parties to say that divine interposition should have saved this country and defeated our enemies; but that was not evidence. After the last war it suited German soldiers and Nationalists and British journalists and advertisers, who are not bad at advertising themselves and each other, to say that victory had come by the use of propaganda. It may be they were right, but I think they were wrong. At any rate, there is very little evidence on their side.
Nevertheless, political warfare so-called has some importance. If I did not think so, I should not be troubling the Committee now. I do not think that it will have considerable importance until Germany has suffered at least two first-rate setbacks. Up to now she has not suffered more than one, if one. Until that moment comes, until the propaganda hammer really can be striking on places made soft by military defeat, there is really only one thing that is of the least use to us. That is that we should build up a reputation for truth, and, hardly less necessary, for dignity. We heard talk at the beginning of the war about "a cad's war "and gangsters to fight gangsters and so on, but that is complete rubbish; and if it is complete rubbish in the management of strategy and the handling of weapons, it is not less so in the use of words. Until we are in a position to command great military victories I do not believe that anything which we do over the wireless will do us much good in Germany, except to establish a reputation for truth and dignity. I do not know how many hon. Gentlemen spend much time listening to these broadcasts or get their friends to act as monitors for them, but if there are many here, I do not think they will claim

that all that might have been done has been done to establish a reputation for dignity. In the news bulletins a great mistake is made in mixing up propaganda with the news—as it were jam with the powder. The news bulletin should consist of news and nothing else. They should state the facts about what is happening inside Germany when we have it, but, at any rate, we should state the facts of what is happening outside, about which we are in a position to know better than the people in Germany. We have made a great mistake in regarding the number of hours of broadcasting as a measure of its usefulness. Too much broadcasting is worse than too little, and I believe that we are attempting now to do a good deal too much. I am sure that four hours of German broadcasting a day is far too much; we cannot possibly have enough stuff.
The difficulty we have in criticising what is said is that for the most part we do not very well know what is said. We can only criticise from a partial knowledge of what is said. One or two things we can say, and I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will listen to me a minute or two before concluding that I am trying to be controversial, because I promise them I am not. I have done my best to get lists of people who speak to foreign audiences in general, and to German audiences in particular, and to look through them and see what sort of people they are. I have not a staff of secretaries, and I cannot honestly pretend that I have really drawn up a statistical report on the matter. My impression, therefore, may be slightly false, but I do not think that it is more than slightly false. It is that almost all, or at least very many, people who broadcast, and particularly those on the characteristic, the leit motiv broadcasts, things like "Democracy marches" or "Britain speaks," the leading articles of broadcasting—a high proportion of people who speak on them are of one kind, those whom one might call the pinkish, leftish intelligentsia. The list I am about to read as characteristic is a haphazard list, but I do not think it is far wrong: R. Crossman, Wickham Steed, A. J. Cummings, E. M. Forster, Francis Williams, J. B. Priestley, V. Bartlett, Noel-Baker, C. E. M. Joad. That is the kind of opinion which has a far larger share of what is said over the ether for Britain than it can ever have had in this country.


That creates a false impression; it conveys an impression which it is the Government's duty not to convey. That impression is doubly mistaken for this reason. Hon. Gentlemen opposite and my hon. Friends on this side may disagree about that particular current of opinion. We may think what we like of it, but do not let us make any mistake that there is any disagreement in Germany about it. They know exactly what they think of that current of opinion, both in that country and in this, and what they think of it is "mud."
The Germans know perfectly well what we are fighting now. It is not a great war, but part of a great war that began in the 1860's, and will finish heaven knows when. It is a long and bitter campaign that we are fighting. The last war was a campaign in it which we won. Now Germans know well enough what they think of the errors made by this pinkish, leftish body of opinion on that sort of historical question. It is almost a mathematically provable falsity to give the world a notion that that current of opinion influences a larger part of this country than it does. And it is a foolish falsity, for it would not help our case in Germany if this particular chatter-gang were larger and more listened to than it is.
It is difficult, without going to great lengths, to give instances, but I could give a good many instances. For instance, one of the gentlemen to whom I am going to refer was one of those who undertook to explain to the German people about Rudolf Hess—hon. Gentlemen may remember that Hess came to this country some time ago and excited a lot of interest—this is one of our most frequent and influential broadcasters. Hess's coming was very badly handled. All sorts of things were said about it on the British wireless, nine-tenths of which could not have been true because no two of them agreed with each other. I do not wish to name the gentleman to whom I refer, although I am quite willing to tell any Ministers who do not recognise him. He told the Germans what impression there must be in Germany about Hess's arrival here—which I thought was an odd thing to do—I discover that I have lost my notes on this matter so I will not delay the House with it for very long. I can only give some points from recollection.—He said, for example, that the Germans must be feeling now something like the

Entsetzen and Dumpfe Ahnung, which I think might be rendered in English as "bewilderment" and "uncomprehending suspiciousness," such as they felt on the day after the long knives in 1934.
What will the Germans remember about that broadcast? They will remember that this gentleman was there in 1934. Rather strangely, he broadcast from Berlin his impressions of what happened. That is what they will remember in Germany about that frequent spokesman of our country. On the actual occasion he did not say that there was any Entsetzen or Dumpfe Ahnung. The House will not blame me for not remembering exactly what he did say. It is difficult to get a verbatim account of it but I have here a newspaper containing an account of it printed next day. It states that he
broadcast from Berlin last night his impressions of the events in Germany over the week-end, when he was in Heidelberg.
He said it was astonishing how little excitement there was either in Heidelberg or in Berlin. By contrast, one could imagine what would have happened in England, if the Prime Minister had arrived in London in the early morning by aeroplane, arrested eight of the party leaders, and by the afternoon they were all dead except one personal friend, who was shot next day.
One of the typical remarks he heard was 'The best thing is that he [i.e. Hitler] wastes no time. The scoundrels are dead now, and out of the way.'
None of the many Germans with whom he spoke would have disagreed.
I would like hon. Gentlemen opposite to remember those words when they start telling us about the two Germanies.

Captain McEwen: Can the hon. Gentleman give the House the name of this gentleman?

Mr. Pickthorn: I did not think it was part of my duty to give his name. I understand that he is a temporary civil servant.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: If he does not give the name, the hon. Gentleman leaves it open to us to say it is one of the names he has already mentioned.

Mr. Peckthorn: I am sorry that I do not quite know what is the propriety of this matter. I have no fears, wish, s, desires, or motives in the matter. I will tell anybody, but I did not think it was quite the right thing to do at the moment.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman will be quoted on the B.B.C. on Sunday in


the Brains Trust as a man with a perfect knowledge of the constitution of this House.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Cuthbert Headlam: Surely the name of anyone who speaks on the B.B.C. must be public property.

Mr. Pickthorn: Very well. I do not mind. His name is R. H. S. Crossman. I have no views on the matter or wish to attack him at all. I am trying to say that that is what the Germans will remember. If your daughter of three is run over by a tram and has a leg amputated, it is very sad, and it would be a hazardous speculation to spend money on having her trained for the ballet; similarly the man about whom these are the things remembered in Germany is the man who simply cannot be used as the coryphaeus of our aerial ballet.
To sum up: What we say on the wireless to Germany should be plain, simple, and dignified. We should never try to sneer or jeer. We should never laugh at Japan. Some gentleman did so, when the Japanese envoy was in Berlin last March—I think that is when it was. There was ragging of the Germans. This gentleman made two ludicrous and unforgivable errors. One was that he was already treating the Japanese as enemies and the second was ragging the Germans by saying something like this, "We have got the great Americans, but you have only got the poor little Japanese." Perhaps it is easy to be wise now, but none of us needed to be very wise then to realise that that was a terrible mistake. There should be nothing but truth and dignity.. We should not try to entertain the Germans with jazz bands. If we must have argument, we should not mix it with the news bulletins.
Hon. Members generally may not be interested in this matter, and I who am interested in the subject myself, think that those who are tend to exaggerate inordinately its importance. If there were information available to us all about everybody who spoke on the B.B.C., so that we could turn it up in order to criticise Ministers, no doubt I should say that one particular gentleman might be far too Leftish while an hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House in a red sweater might say that the same broadcaster was far too Rightish, and that would be a very tiresome position for

Ministers. On the other hand, we have the ludicrous situation at present that we are not given proper facilities for knowing what is being said in our name and in the name of our country on the wireless, to our deadly enemies in a moment of deadly peril. This matter interests not only Ministers but a great many other people, and we believe there should be far greater facilities for knowledge.
One final point. When first we asked for this information we were told that we could listen in for ourselves. Honestly, one could fairly describe that answer as the insolence of place. Many of us may not have the time to listen to these broadcasts; many of us do not know German, and could not write it down if we did unless we knew shorthand. Then we were told that if we liked to apply for the information, we could have it. We have applied, but there are sometimes long delays. I wrote to my hon. Friend two or three weeks ago and asked for information, but I have not yet had a reply. Not only are there long delays, but sometimes you do not get the information at all. The real truth is that this is being made a sort of little secret business for a lot of little secret experts, who are not experts at all, and it is high time that the winds of criticism blew roughly through the whole thing.

Wing-Commander James: Some interesting questions have been raised by my hon. Friend who has just made such an admirable speech about the personalities behind these broadcasts. It is a subject on which we want some light. Our broadcasts are being brought into contempt in present circumstances, especially if those allowed to speak have notoriously and flagrantly avoided their military obligations. Is it not the case that, in a broadcast which is most widely listened to, the two most advertised persons are those who, on the outbreak of the last war, being of optimum military age, both avoided service and one even fled to America to avoid the war? It seems to me to be a disgraceful thing that the Broadcasting Corporation at this stage of the war should employ, on the most popular of all programmes, Professor Joad and Dr. Laski.

Mr. Ernest Evans: My hon. and gallant Friend opposite was attempting to lead us into a


very wide discussion and one which I felt to be outside the very limited scope possible on these Estimates. These Estimates ask us to give an additional £1,300,000 to the British Broadcasting Corporation, and, as I understand the constitutional position, that cannot be done unless the Minister of Information approves. That is how we get him into the picture. There are only two directions in which we can reach him. One is in regard to Empire programmes, and the other in regard to foreign broadcasts. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) at one stage of his speech seemed to minimise the importance of foreign broadcasts for political warfare, and I must say I am inclined to agree with him that their value is greatly exaggerated. It all depends on the conditions. In political warfare between two countries which are at each other's throats, like Germany and ourselves, only one thing counts, and that is news. If the Germans could have told us, before our own Government told us, that three German warships had passed up the Straits of Dover, that would have been worth a good deal to them and would have counted much more than any of the stories they may produce about this war being fought for the Jews and so forth. Any facts, any news, will have very great effect.
Political warfare, however, is not confined to countries actually at war. If it is to be valuable, it must be directed to other countries as well. I am not sure whether the propaganda or political warfare which we are conducting at the present time in China is at all comparable with that which is being conducted by the Japanese. I doubt whether our propaganda in countries like Spain or Portugal is comparable with that of our enemies in those same countries. And when we are asked to vote additional sums for this and other purposes, we are entitled to ask the Minister whether he is really satisfied that we are getting full value for the money we are spending. As has been pointed out in this Debate, it is difficult for us to judge. There are not many of us who can listen to the broadcasts in foreign languages, or even understand them if they are given to us on paper, and I would therefore like to stress the appeal which has been made by more than one speaker this afternoon—that we should be given some indication of exactly what

goes out from this country in our broadcasts to foreign countries.
Then there is the question of our Empire news. Here, perhaps we are a little better able to judge, because we are able to listen to some, at least, on certain occasions, but I would like to ask the Minister one question. How does he decide on the success or otherwise of our Empire broadcasts? When the Parliamentary Secretary was speaking a short time ago he rather gave the impression that the way in which he decided as to whether these broadcasts were successful or not was by the number of times they were recorded and rebroadcast. That is no test at all, because it may be the Ministry itself, or the B.B.C., which decides. I should like to know whether he is in close contact with public opinion in the Dominions and the various parts of the Empire as to the particular parts of the Empire broadcasts which are most acceptable, and whether, in drafting his programmes, he bears that in mind.

Captain Plugge: The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) referred to three points: the question of maintaining truth in broadcasting news, the suggestion that propaganda would not be of much use without a double defeat or two big set-backs for Germany, and thirdly that the length of transmissions to countries abroad could be too great. I would like to point out that when referring to truth, one must always consider the time factor. Although in the bulletins which we received on the campaign in Malaya, we did have the truth, it was the truth of the situation prevailing two or three days before, whereas the reports of enemy sources announced with our news gave the position at the time. Is this keeping to the truth? As to the question whether propaganda is of use before Germany has had two set-backs, we must realise that we cannot put over propaganda at the proper time unless we have already established the means of transmitting it, and have mustered a regular audience.
The last time I spoke on international broadcasting in this House, on 3rd July last [OFFICIAL REPORT 3rd July, 1941; col. 1567 and following Vol. 372] I pointed out that Germany operated 92 medium wave-lengths and seven long wave-lengths, while we used only six medium wave-lengths and no long wavelengths


at all. In order to put over propaganda successfully it is necessary not only to construct and establish stations but also to operate those stations for a considerable number of months in order to build up large and ready audiences. Building up an audience to a broadcasting station is very much like building up the circulation of a newspaper. It is no use saying that we must wait until Germany has had two set-backs before sending out our propaganda. We have to build our stations now, and we have not only to build them, but to keep them in operation for a long time with interesting programmes, until they become well known to the listeners and become favourites too. Only in this way can we build up large audiences, who will already be listening when we wish to put over the required propaganda once German set-backs have occurred, as I hope and am confident they will occur. We shall then be able to make full use of the vast radio net-work which, in this way, we shall have provided, operated and equipped.
Debating broadcasting in this House is not so difficult a matter, inasmuch as it differs from most other subjects in the following respect. It is possible for anybody to see what happens or what is happening in the æther field; one does not necessarily have to ask Ministers a lot of questions, all that is required is to sit down beside a wireless receiver and very soon any hon. Member can find out for himself the improvements or otherwise that have been brought about to the service. During my last speech in the House on this subject I suggested a considerable number of improvements and an important general expansion of our foreign broadcasting system, and therefore I am, naturally, anxious to support the Estimates we have before us today. I should be glad indeed to see them much greater than they are in order to cover a very extensive field of expansion. Among the many suggestions I put forward during my last speech, one, I am glad to say, has been met two others have been unfortunately only very partially met. The others have apparently received no response. I laid great stress on the necessity of utilising a long-wave station in order to increase our audience in Europe, by far greater coverage and also to conform to the numerous long

wave receivers, so much in use in Europe. Since my plea I am glad to acknowledge that the B.B.C is now operating a broadcasting station on 1,500 metres. Thus we are now operating some eight medium-wave and one long-wave station, as against the 92 medium waves and seven long waves of the enemy. I would like to ask the Minister, in view of the success of this long wave for covering Europe, whether he is contemplating building one or two more such high-power long-wave stations, this I think would be possible, provided we could obtain the necessary gear.
Here comes the point that has often been raised—we have not sufficient gear. Is the Minister satisfied in his own mind that he has done everything he can to obtain all the necessary gear, as much gear as possible? When I paid a three-week visit two years ago to the United States, I ascertained that there was a good deal of excellent radio gear available at that time, and I mentioned it in the House on the day of my return [OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th August, 1940, col. 1236 and following Vol. 364]. The Radio Corporation of America disposed for sale of six high-power stations of 50 kilowatts each. Such transmitters, which are of the best, take a long time to build, but they were ready to be delivered then. Yet we refrained from purchasing this material. In addition, there were and still are many other radio manufacturing companies in the United States which possess a large quantity of similar and also lower-power transmitters which we could have obtained and can still obtain for this country. Is the Minister satisfied that he is acquiring everything he can in every possible direction? A new danger now arises. It has been announced in the American technical Press that many of the big United States radio manufacturers will be compelled within the next few months to change over their production to what is generally more directly called munitions of war, aeroplane parts, shells and the like. Therefore the production of radio transmitting gear will diminish in consequence in the United States and be more difficult to acquire. Should we not at once do all we can to procure as much as we can of American transmitting and recording gear, especially as I believe we can acquire a good deal under the Lease-Lend arrangements.
Among the other suggestions I put forward, when I last spoke on this subject, was the erection in Great Britain of freedom stations, one for each one of the allied Governments at present established in this country. They should operate these stations as much as possible under the same conditions as if they were operating their own Government stations in their own country. One thing we can give them here is a broadcasting station of their own. They had a broadcasting station of their own when in their own country. They have come here, having lost everything. One thing they need not lose is their own wave-length and therefore their own broadcasting station. I would like to impress on the Minister again that each allied Government should have its own broadcasting station from which it can broadcast to its nationals in the same way and in the same manner as if some small part of its country had not been overrun by the enemy, and had retained its own broadcasting station still in operation. We have met these Allies to a very small extent by granting them a certain number of half-hours to Allied Governments on two or three shared wave-lengths. Such an arrangement has not the same propaganda value as a separate station using always the same language with its own personality such as any independent government is entitled to have. The B.B.C. have, since the change of Director-General, increased the transmissions to France in particular, by increasing the number of special half-hours allotted to the De Gaulle administration. I listen to them a good deal, and, as transmissions, they are very good indeed and very well conducted. The only fault I find is that there are not enough of them and that they ought to be conducted continuously on one station to the exclusion of any other language or transmission.
As regards the remark made by the hon. Member for Cambridge University, that transmissions to foreign countries could be too long, I must say that I cannot agree with that suggestion because when broadcasting one does not speak to the same audience all the time. I would like to see French transmissions for instance continuously in progress for 24 hours throughout the day. The fact that you broadcast for many hours does not mean that the same listeners are listening

all the time. Therefore, the longer the transmissions the more people you actually reach. Another suggestion I made concerned the granting of facilities in this country to the American chains to re-broadcast on medium waves what is coming over on the short waves from their American stations. The United States are doing a lot of propaganda directed at Europe to-day in many languages, but the American broadcasting companies do not possess a medium wave station by which to reach all the ordinary listeners in the various nations in Europe whose language they use. We could place such a station at the disposal of the American broadcasting chains, the C.B.S., the N.B.C. and the M.B.S., so that what they have to say could be rebroadcast in the medium wave band and received throughout Europe to the great delight of these oppressed people. I am glad to see that the B.B.C. has met this wish in a very small way. I believe that one half an hour a day is devoted to rebroadcasting some of the broadcasts from the U.S.A. That is not enough. What I ask is a minimum of two stations, one to be at the disposal of each of the two big American broadcasting systems.
I wish to touch upon a point mentioned by the Prime Minister when he spoke from Washington. He laid great stress on the fact, that our greatest disaster was the loss to our cause of the French Colonies and the French Fleet. The surrender of Indo-China to Japan made the fall of Singapore possible. What have we done to try to get the French Colonies and the French Fleet back on our side. By using the great medium of broadcasting in a well planned manner I believe this return possible. I suggest that we have not done one-tenth of what we should have done. We have never built a station at Gibraltar that would cover the whole of North Africa. I claim that if we had had a medium-wave station operating there all the time, so that specially studied propaganda could have been sent on a medium wave to North Africa, there might have been a great change of attitude on the part of the French Colonies, so important to the Libyan campaign. I believe these Colonies could still be brought on our side if we made the effort. There is no risk of life involved, practically no expense in money or material. May I ask


the Minister why a station cannot be put up in Gibraltar? I feel that I could build one there to-morrow which would operate in three months.
Yet, I am told there is not enough electric current in Gibraltar. It all depends on the power of the station. There is enough power in a bed-room to run a station of zoo watts and this could provide a start. A station at Gibraltar would have a great effect in Spain, because so far as I can find out the whole of the broadcasting system, as well as the Press, in Spain is under German control. All we can do is to rely upon a British whispering campaign in Spain. Therefore, I again ask the Minister whether we could not build stations at Gibraltar, at Malta and in Cyprus such as I have now suggested for the past two years. Perhaps this is not a matter for the B.B.C. Perhaps such a plan should be carried out by the Government or the Ministry of Information. We want our short-wave transmissions to be re-broadcast everywhere locally, and if there is not a station to re-broadcast them locally, and we have some territory near by on which we can build one, we should do so without any delay.
I turn now to the interference or jamming which the Germans are imposing on our French transmissions. I lay great stress on our French transmissions because of the opportunity they present to win over the French Colonies on our side. Our transmissions to France are jammed by Germany. It so happens that before the collapse of France, I was consulted on how to establish in France jamming stations to obstruct the German broadcasts. After consultation we decided to build 80 small 100-watt stations throughout France each giving a jamming note, and each making small pockets of areas where French people could not listen to the German anti-British transmissions in French. These jamming stations have been taken over by the Germans and they are now being used by them to jam our transmissions from here to France and also our Continental news service in English. But the jamming we perceive here is not half so strong as this jamming is to listeners who live in the vicinity of one of these small jamming stations. What does the Minister propose to do to counter that jamming? If he does not propose any counter-measures,

does he propose to establish any retaliation? The last suggestion I made a year and a half ago was the establishment of some 500 small broadcasting stations all over England which would be useful in case of invasion, on a power of 500 watts, operating all the time and on all kinds of wavelengths used at present by the enemy. The operation of these baby stations would to a great extent hamper the enemy broadcasts without causing us any trouble within the small area these baby stations would be intended to cover. I trust the Government will not take this question of jamming by Germany lying down, and will again review the concrete suggestions I am making now and that I made on 3rd July of last year and on August 20th of 1940.

Mr. Price: I think it is generally agreed that the feature which should be followed all the time in our broadcasts is that of truth and dignity, more particularly in respect of our propaganda to Germany. There may be doubt whether broadcasts which involve a moral appeal have the value which some of us think they have. Throughout a good part of last year, and until fairly recently, there was in our broadcasts to Germany a type of propaganda which, to some extent, comes into this category of moral appeal. It attempted to show how we envisaged, among other things, the post-war Europe; and to show the German people what really is going on in this country, the way our democracy works, and what is likely to happen to the German people when they are defeated. I believe that one of the reasons for starting this propaganda was the work which is being done on the German broadcast system by Dr. Ley. Dr. Ley is one of the ablest of the Nazi leaders and he has been put in charge of labour organisation. For a long time he has carried on propaganda to prove to the German working-man that this is a war of liberation for all European labour from the slavery of Anglo-Jewish capitalists. Those who know the mentality of German working-men will realise that that is a very sinister propaganda, and it is no use ignoring its significance. Anti-Semitism has deep coots in Germany, particularly in the Eastern parts, and it has, in the course of generations, worked down even to the Labour movement.
It was right for the B.B.C. to answer this dangerous propaganda, which is probably still having an important influence in galvanising the German working people behind the German war machine. Time has been allocated by the B.B.C. to enable the British labour point of view to be given in reply. I think that that has had some effect, if only because, as I am informed, Dr. Ley has actually been to the trouble of replying to many of the statements we have put over. The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) does not seem to like what he calls the "pinkish-leftish" kind of propaganda, but, at any rate, Dr. Ley has been sufficiently interested to reply. I do not claim that the "pinkish-leftish "propaganda should be the dominant type. Let blue and yellow propaganda be employed as well—we are all in this together. But I very much regret that the hon. Member should have tried to create a prejudice against a particular propaganda which is designed to defeat the sinister propaganda of Dr. Ley.

Mr. Pickthurn: Left propaganda is not sinister, of course.

Mr. Price: I was afraid that I should have come under the lash of the hon. Member's tongue, because I have, on several occasions, taken part in this propaganda. Left propaganda has its uses. I should regret very much if it were done away with, but I wonder whether the moral appeal, by itself, is enough to impress the German workers. We have to use the instrument of fear as well. It is clear that the Russians understand this matter better than we do. The Russian propaganda, like the curate's egg, is good in parts. It tends to be crude at times. Much of their propaganda in this country in the past has been of that kind. But the Russians understand the mentality of the German workers better than we do. The type of propaganda that Russia has been carrying on among the Germans, by broadcasting, has depended much less on moral appeal, and much more on a personal appeal, pointing out to the German workers their responsibility for backing the Hitler régime. More recently, the appeal has been definitely an appeal to fear, telling individual German workers and soldiers, "In every other country in Europe there is underground revolt against Hitler—sabotage, go-slow, obstruction in every way. In only one

country is there none of these things. You are responsible; and you cannot expect us to treat you in the same way, when we win, as we treat those people who put up a fight for us through these terrible days." Although I should regret to see the propaganda with a certain moral appeal done away with altogether, I think that the other sort is becoming much more effective. I cannot quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss), who seemed to think that the moral appeal should be the chief basis of our propaganda to Germany.
Many have thought, as I thought recently, that there still remained a fairly large body of old German trade union and Social Democratic opinion, to which we might appeal. Such opinion probably exists to some extent, but I believe that most of those people have either been murdered or are in exile. During the four years which I spent in Germany after the last war, in the days of the poor little Weimar Republic, I saw the beginning of the work of the murder gangs. Practically all these labour leaders and trade union leaders with whom I made contact were either under the sod or in exile by the time I left Germany. That policy was carried out by the spiritual progenitors of those against whom we are fighting to-day. This sort of thing has been going on for generations in Germany. That was something that I had not realised before I lived there. This appeal to the old German Socialist community may still have a little effect, but we must take our cue from our Allies the Russians. Let us get in touch with the Russians; let there be much more mutual understanding between us on this matter of political and propaganda arrangements, because it is a matter on which they are experts.

Mr. Henry Strauss: Most of what I wish to say has been said so much more ably by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) that I shall limit my speech to a few remarks. On this Vote to-day there are many subjects connected with the B.B.C. which many of us would like to discuss that are clearly out of Order, and I propose, therefore, to deal with nothing except political warfare. While, in common with many who have spoken in all quarters of the Committee, I think that our political warfare leaves much to be desired, we should be less than generous and fair to my


right hon. Friend the Minister of Information if we did not call attention to the undoubted fact that the present scheme of the Political Warfare Executive is at any rate a considerable improvement upon what preceded it. My right hon. Friend is entitled at least to his share of the credit for that improvement. Like the hon. Member for Cambridge University and hon. Members on the other side who have spoken, I agree that there has been a great exaggeration of what can be achieved by political warfare in the absence of military success. The possibilities are very limited, as I believe is recognised by nobody more than by my right hon. Friend the Minister; and I think it will be his wish, as it is certainly ours, that the little that can be done should be done well.
Everybody is agreed, I think, that the most important thing to achieve is to obtain and to maintain a reputation for veracity. If that is lost, our power of using political warfare when military victory makes it possible to use it with more effect will almost vanish. Let me give my right hon. Friend an example; it is not perhaps concerned directly with veracity, but it is an example of the sort of thing we ought to avoid. If a dispute takes place in public between two Government Departments in London over something which has been broadcast by the B.B.C., that does not increase our effectiveness abroad. What happened last week? In one of our foreign broadcasts, I do not remember which, there was an announcement that, in the coming Spring, this country would engage in a bombing offensive against Germany such as had never been seen before. Interested journalists in this country at once went to the Air Ministry and asked "What is all this that was put out last night by the B.B.C.?" The Air Ministry answered "We know nothing about it" and suggested that it must have been "mere propaganda." I should have thought it would have been easy for the Air Ministry to say "We have no statement to make about broadcasts by the B.B.C. If you want any information on the subject go to the Ministry of Information." That type of blunder, in which a statement is put out by the B.B.C. in the course of political warfare and then explained away in a statement made by a representative of another Government Department, is

deplorable. I know that my right hon. Friend must agree with me on that point, and I suggest that steps should be taken to avoid any repetition of that kind of error.
Let me consider our political warfare against Germany, because that has been the subject of many of the speeches today, including a very interesting one by the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price). Our propaganda to Germany cannot be very effective at the moment in the absence of victory, but the time will come when it may become very important indeed. At the present time the tendency of a great deal of our propaganda is to encourage a sham revolution in Germany. The effect of devoting our powers of propaganda to encouraging a sham revolution may be to weaken our power of propaganda when there is a real revolution, and when the importance of our exercising some influence from this country may be very great. I would again draw attention to something which I have mentioned in this House before but which is often overlooked. Foreigners constantly pick up propaganda that is not intended for them. It is no good indulging in propaganda to Germany which we think will be useful there if, when it is heard in various Allied countries, it has a disastrous effect upon them. That is one of the reasons why a great deal of what was formerly advocated from the Benches opposite has not, on the whole, been advocated to-day.
Like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Commander King-Hall) and other speakers I have been hampered, as is everybody who takes an interest in this matter, by the difficulty of finding out exactly what has been said in these foreign broadcasts. On various occasions I have listened to our propaganda to Germany and I have also had reports from others who have listened, and what I have learned leaves me extremely puzzled as to what is the idea behind a great deal of our propaganda. It does not increase this country's reputation for clarity or for dignity. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University has dealt with some of the necessary weaknesses in any propaganda from Mr. Crossman by reason of the broadcast delivered on the morrow of Hitler's murder of his friends. That is remembered in Germany and necessarily


weakens Mr. Crossman. But there are other weaknesses in what he is now saying. I do not doubt for a moment that he has certain abilities, I do not doubt that he believes that what he is doing or proposing is useful, but he often appears to talk complete nonsense, and repeats what has already been demonstrated in Germany to be nonsense. I have many examples of it, and I will quote one, because I hope the Minister will look into this matter, as, indeed, I am certain that he will. Mr. Crossman has the fixed idea that the existence of the Third Reich depends upon the widespread myth of the infallibility of Hitler. That is said again and again by Mr. Crossman. Not a month goes by, scarcely a week, without his accentuating that theme. Let me give one quotation only, because I do not wish to weary the Committee with quotations:
It will be interesting to see how many more communiqués of this kind"—
this refers to the German communiqué about the withdrawal from Rostov—
the generals will allow him"—
that is, Hitler—
to publish without endangering the myth of infallibility on which the existence of the Third Reich depends.
That sentence is almost beyond parody for the number of errors it contains. It misrepresents any possible relationship between Hitler and his generals, but the point is that he is saying that everything depends on the myth of Hitler's infallibility. Although Mr. Crossman may be widely listened to in Germany he is not quite so widely listened to as Hitler himself, and Hitler himself has, in a widely broadcast speech, answered Mr. Crossman on this very point and on nothing did he get more laughter and cheers from the whole of his audience throughout Germany. He referred to Mr. Crossman's speech in which he was accused at that time of having made seven blunders. This was Hitler's reply:
I have not made seven but 724 blunders.
That was Hitler's reply which was heard throughout Germany. So far from the Third Reich depending on this myth of Hitler's infallibility there is no myth that Hitler himself has taken more trouble to destroy.

Mr. Silverman: Is it the hon. Member's point that Mr. Cross-man's broadcast was so utterly valueless

in its appeal to the German people that Hitler thought it necessary to reply to it personally?

Mr. Strauss: Oh, no. The hon. Member has quite misunderstood me. In an enormous series of broadcasts by Mr. Crossman—and he has broadcast more and has more influence upon our broadcasting to Germany than most other people—no doubt he occasionally says something potentially useful. But he has so constantly repeated what Hitler has already effectively answered to the German people that to persist in that effort seems to me to be a mistake. I am not going to speculate why he thinks he knows so very much better, but I do not believe that it is a good line to take in Germany because nobody believes it. It strikes them as nonsense. It indicates to the Germans that the people who compose the broadcast do not know Germany and it gives them another suspicion of the material that the composers are using. They say that this Englishman who talks nonsense has been listening to emigrés and this is another weakness of which my right hon. Friend should take note—emigrés always exaggerate their knowledge of their own country and in the case of many German emigrés not only have they not been there for some time, but they showed themselves to be utterly out of touch with predominant German opinion the whole time that they were there. An hon. Member said that a certain amount of Left Wing talks has been dropped and that there has been a change and he wonders why. I will call attention to another change. Those in control of our propaganda to Germany seem to have a tremendous belief in a revolution in Germany but they do not know what the nature of the revolution should be. Formerly it appeared to be a revolution from the Left, but now the tendency is to encourage the German generals. Let the Germans realise how much the generals disagreed with Hitler. Here is a talk as late as 20th January:
We know that these changes"—
that is in the German Officer Corps—
reflect the growing conviction in responsible German military circles that Adolf Hitler is leading Germany to destruction.
In fact, we know nothing of the kind. There is a statement which is apparently designed, so far as there is any design in


it, to increase the reputation of German militarist leaders in contrast with Hitler. I am sure that is not a very effective thing to do—

Viscountess Astor: Does it not do exactly what you want to do—create dissension in Germany?

Mr. Strauss: The Noble Lady has just come into the House and, therefore, I think, has not followed my argument. What I suggest to the Noble Lady and to the Committee is this. At this moment it would be dangerous and futile to try to bring about a revolution by propaganda, not knowing what revolution it is you wish to encourage. I think it is idiotic in the case of Germany if you favour a left-wing revolution one day and a revolution by the generals the next. But suppose it is desired to promote by propaganda a revolution in Germany, the least likely way to bring it about is constantly to allege the existence in Germany of a greater opposition to the German Government than you have any reason to believe in. I agree with the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean who called attention to some of the tendencies of recent Russian propaganda. The way to promote a revolution in Germany, if that is our desire, or to accentuate any difference there may be between the German Government and the German people, is to make it clear in all our propaganda that we in this country will assume that the German people are wholly behind Hitler until they themselves demonstrate the contrary.
I listened to a recent broadcast to Germany in the form of dialogue or conversation which accentuated and exaggerated the German opposition to the regime the whole time, and made out that we believed there were all sorts of sets of opposition in Germany. It talked a lot of nonsense about some sermons delivered by a German Bishop and patriot who in fact desired a German victory but objected to the weakening of morale at home, which was being caused in his opinion by the way Hitler was treating the Church. This was treated as though it came from an ecclesiastic more or less on our side. The way in which the Russians indulge, when they do indulge, in distinctions between the German people and their regime is to say to the German people, "It is no good your coming over when the Allies are winning. If you

want to do anything you must do it long before that." The whole tendency of our sham revolution talk to Germany is to give them, if they believe it, the best both ways bet in all history. Every German listening in to the stuff advocated in the columns of the "New Statesman"—which, I am glad to see, is now rather worried by the attitude of Premier Stalin—thinks, "Hitler has promised us that he will enslave the rest of the world. If he carries the war to victory, all other nations will become our slaves; if, however, things go wrong WE have only to stage a democratic revolution and all will be forgiven us." What conceivable motive does that give any German listener to do anything but work and fight for Hitler's victory?

Earl Winterton: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Member, with whose remarks I am so much in agreement. Fortunately, there is one person who will stop the Germans succeeding in that, whatever "softies" may say in this country, and that is Stalin, with the Russian people behind him.

Mr. Strauss: I agree. I hope that will be recognised by some hon. Members who may sympathise with a Left Wing deputation that recently made representations to the Russian Ambassador in this country, and got, I think, exactly what they deserved. To any Member who is tempted to think that the sort of propaganda to which I have referred is wise, I would commend a study of any history of the last war about the various resolutions indulged in by the Reichstag and the Parties and the various political steps taken in Germany between the autumn of 1917 or the launching of the German offensive in March 1918 and the Armistice. Such a study will show that the Germans calculated every move from the point of view of what they thought would help them in their dealing with their enemies. When their arras appeared to prosper, their ambitions revived; when their arms were less successful in the field, they became more reasonable. A great deal of the propaganda that is now being poured over Germany by the B.B.C.—the B.B.C. are not responsible for it, because this is wholly under ministerial control—can be treasured by the Germans in order that, when things go wrong, they can say, "What kind of revolution will be the best one to stage in order to deceive


the British?" On this particular matter, I do not doubt the sound sense of my right hon. Friend who is to reply to the Debate.

Mr. McGovern: The hon. Member said the Germans will ask, "What kind of revolution will deceive the British?" I say they will ask, not "What kind of revolution will deceive the British?" but "What kind of revolution will satisfy the British?"

Mr. Strauss: I do not think that is what Hitler is thinking of. If the hon. Member thinks that the Nazi régime are not calculating, in their appropriate department, what is the right step when an anti-Nazi revolution becomes advisable, I think he is mistaken. I believe that in Germany, at this moment, the opposite number of my right hon. Friend is working out, on behalf of the Nazis, how they should act in order to deceive the British people when the time comes.

Mr. McGovern: At the end of the last war Germany had a political revolution and Russia had an economic revolution. The political revolution satisfied this country, but the economic revolution did not satisfy it. The hon. Member has said that Stalin will see to it that Russia is not tricked. Am I to take it that the hon. Member is in favour of an economic revolution overtaking the German people?

Mr. Strauss: I have not got nearly so much knowledge of Stalin as the hon. Member has. The point on which I am praising Russian propaganda in this matter is that it does seem to be more realistic about the German people. The Russian propaganda is not based on the idea that they believe in there being two Germanys, and that the second Germany can delay its revolution until Germany is losing, and still hope to get away with it. I think Stalin recognises the truth, that the German people at present overwhelmingly support the German Government. Another weakness of much of our propaganda to Germany is the constant laughing at or ridiculing of Hitler without ever recognising that everything that the Prime Minister is to us, and everything that Mr. Roosevelt is to America, Hitler is to the overwhelming majority of the German people. If this idea of holding out bribes or making offers to the German people in return for revolution does no good in Germany, it can do the very greatest harm among our Allies. Our propaganda, even

to Germany, is listened to not only in Germany but throughout Europe and by Allied Governments In this country, and they must often wonder what exactly it is that we are doing.
I thought that a passage in one of Mr. Crossman's broadcasts, which dealt with the respect he said the English felt for the German Army, was not very happy in view of what was being suffered by the Poles and the Russians at that moment. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Information, in answer to a Parliamentary Question, made the best defence he could, but I wonder whether on reconsideration he really thinks that any conceivable good was done in Germany to compensate for the amount of harm it was calculated to do among our Allies. I do not believe that it was calculated to have any effect in Germany, except to make them laugh at it. The Minister who opened the Debate said, and said rightly, that a great number of people incurred great risks in order to listen to our propaganda in Germany. I think that they incur those risks to hear the news. True news is a thing they are starved of, and if we can give them news, by which I mean facts and truths, we can build up a great reputation for veracity, which, when the time comes, we may be able to use. We shall not in Tease our reputation for veracity if we indulge first in one idea and then in another, and persist in holding the general quite unclarified idea that any revolution anywhere must be useful and that, therefore, we must encourage minority parties, even if those minority parties exist only in our imagination. We shall not by such methods increase our reputation for veracity, nor our power to use propaganda effectively at the time when we may most wish to use it.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Cuthbert Headlam: I do not intend to detain the Committee very long, but I should like to say one or two things more or less in support: of what the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) said, and what has just fallen from the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss). It is perfectly obvious that in this war, until comparatively recently, our propaganda in foreign countries has not had any success. I confess my own experience is limited, but I have been told that from the early days of the war, wherever you went in Europe, you heard German propaganda


but never British propaganda. It was exactly the same in other matters. It has taken us a very long time to shake down to realities in this war. It is perfectly true, as hon. Members have said, that really effective propaganda in Germany can never come until victory is on our side. Then, in my opinion, it will not be necessary because the Germans will do exactly what they did in the last war and tumble over each other in order to try to satisfy us and make us believe that they are entirely different.
It is no good our propaganda from this country being political. It is perfectly clear, as, I think, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich said, that we must take the line that, as long as the war goes on, we are fighting the German nation and that the German nation is solidly behind the Nazis. It may well be that there are in Germany—I am sure there are—a good many people who are not in favour of the Hitler regime and who would be very glad to get rid of it if they could, but during the time the war is going on it is obvious to anyone with common sense that all these people have a greater concern even than Hitler, and that is that they believe their country is what they are fighting for, just as we are fighting for ours, and that they are going to follow Hitler because they have no alternative, and at present they think they are on the winning side. We have to make it clear that we are fighting the German nation, and not only a section of it. But it is equally absurd to try to believe that broadcasts from this country, even from the most admirable young men, with the most perfect political views, progressives, whoever they may be, are really going to affect German public opinion. It seems to me that our propaganda should be directed as far as possible to showing the Germans the spirit which is influencing us, our determination, in spite of everything, to carry through, and to show them how this country is standing the strain of the war and to remember that we are really behind the Government in the war effort to the last man.
I agree with the view that it is very foolish to send out anything in the way of propaganda to try and influence the Germans which would have the effect, even supposing it succeeded, of antagonising

those who are on our side. I can quite well realise that many people who have suffered as they have in foreign countries where the German army has been might not appreciate at all what was meant in a perfectly fair remark, such as one antagonist might make to another, regarding the efficiency of the German army. No one doubts that, but no one in this country should go out of his way to say anything which can in any way give a wrong impression of what public opinion here is with regard to Germany, her army, her policy and everything else. I do not believe that political warfare, as it is called, is of no avail. I am certain that it is a very powerful piece of war armament if utilised in the proper way, but it is futile, and always will be, merely to abuse your opponent. I am certain that more harm has been done than anyone can imagine by the silly, rude things continually being said about Hitler and his gang. The best way to treat that lot is not to talk about them at all. It is no use bandying words. If anyone broadcasting from Germany abuses oar leaders, what effect has it upon us? It either makes us angry or makes us laugh. Let us for the sake of common sense and reason not allow any more of this futile abuse. Let us try to make the enemy realise that we intend to win this war, that we have the capacity for winning and that we shall not cease fighting until we do win it. If we can get that kind of view into the heads of the people of Germany after our setbacks and defeats all over the world, and if we show them that we have the will to victory and keep smiling—a foolish expression, but it is what we have to do—I am sure it is the kind of propaganda that should be directed wholesale throughout the world. If we are to direct propaganda towards Germany at all, let it be of that type and not a weak political attempt to create a revolution in a country where no revolution is possible until military defeat stares its people in the eye.

Mr. McGovern: I am very interested in this Debate, because I have always held the view that this war could be lost or won for humanity as a whole by propaganda and by example. I have heard criticism in the country of the type of propaganda that is put over to Germany. I have heard a great deal of abuse by those who have conducted this propaganda. We


must realise that abuse can recoil on your own head. After hearing "Lord Haw-Haw" continually speaking of all the crimes of the Prime Minister—more crimes than I think he has—I am driven ultimately to a sense of sympathy with him and at times I have to guard against supporting the Prime Minister because of the vitriolic propaganda that comes night after night against him. Therefore, abuse of Hitler and the Nazi gang is of no avail. That kind of thing is good enough for the music hall. I remember that in the last war poor comedians would come on the stage and say, "To hell with the Kaiser!" It would bring down the house and it made people forget the turn. If they had been judging the turn they would have chased the comedian off the stage. To indulge in propaganda of that type is good enough for a low music hall comedian, but it is not good enough for serious political propaganda. The hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss) referred to an English broadcast to which Hitler replied. In Hollywood there is a rule, I am told, that writers of film stories must assume that the average age of intelligence is nine years. I think that is too high. Nevertheless, we have to assume that the average intelligence is low, and it must not be taken that there are not a tremendous lot of simpletons in Germany. If there were not millions of simpletons in Germany, Hitler could not use them as he has been using them in the military escapades in which he is engaged.
In this country recently our own Prime Minister was a sort of myth. I heard an old lady refer to him in the tram the other day. Somebody asked her, immediately after he had come on to the wireless and made a big speech: "Did you hear Winston's speech last night?" She replied: "Speech? It wasn't a speech, it was a feast." Last Sunday my wife came up from Glasgow with a number of munitions girls, and she happened to hand them two morning papers to read in the train. One girl said to another, "Listen who's on the wireless to-night." The other said, "Oh, blow her." That shows the changes that take place in the mentality of individuals. Therefore, I say that we must not go on the assumption that we are dealing with completely intelligent people in Germany any more than in this country. Otherwise you are

saying something that is 30 or 40 years removed from the truth.
We have to make up our minds what we mean by revolution in Germany. I am all for revolution in Germany and in this country, but I am in favour of a revolution of mind first and foremost, because the mind must keep pace with the revolution. If not, you land yourselves in a sorry mess. I do not want to be governed by a clan. I assume that the German people do not want a revolution that will place them in the hands of another set of gangsters Mark you, this is the crux of my attitude to the war. If I were satisfied in my own mind that Britain was leading the struggle for a better world and that, by example, she was showing the people of Germany that there was' a better kind of world to be attained in our own times and was appealing to the Germans to do likewise, I should take part in the struggle for that better world, because I am not a pacifist. I believe in ulitimate pacifism, as a large number of other people believe, but I am a realist in my approach to the political problems of to-day. I ask what you mean by the revolution that you are out for. We had it after the last war, and you could not ask for a better example. There were two revolutions, one in Russia and one in Germany. In Russia, Kerensky assumed power. He attempted to perpetrate a political fraud on the people by making them believe there had been a revolution, although it was only a Change of masters.
We have to make up our minds whether we mean a fundamental revolution or only a change of political masters with no change for the large mass of the people underneath. Lenin appeared on the scene. If Stalin had had to do with the matter, probably there would never have been the deep economic revolution for which Lenin planned. Lenin said, "This is a political fraud. This does not mean any change. There will be a continuation of the war and a change of masters. We have to get rid of the root cause of war, unemployment and poverty at the same time. Let us tear up from the roots the economic ownership of the means of life. Let us have a fundamental change that will raise the masses"—not one at a time into the Cabinet, but the whole people at the same time—"into a position of complete social change." Russia went in for that com-


plete economic revolution. It does not appeal to the ruling class of this country. They spent £100,000,000 in trying to destroy the result of that revolution. But to-day you want a revolution in Germany, and you have to recognise this—

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): I think the hon. Member is discussing revolutions as a whole rather than questions of propaganda.

Mr. McGovern: I am trying to show by examples what I mean, and I am trying to urge the Minister of Information to go in for a different type of propaganda. The object of the propaganda which should be put over to the German people is an appeal to them to revolt against Hitler. Germany went in for a revolution after the last war. Is that the type of revolution you are going to ask them to go through again? If the Russian one was all wrong in your conception, and the German one has turned out by example to be all wrong because it has repeated in 20 years' time the same old struggle for supremacy, what are you going to urge to the German people over the B.B.C.?
There is also another assumption that I have never been able to understand. It is the assumption that the German people are prepared to throw over Hitler or Hitlerism because of something you are going to urge them to accept. What is it you will urge them to accept? Is it a change from Hitlerism to what I might call Churchillism? Is it that we have a vast slave Empire which we are seeking to maintain against their aggression? That is not an appeal to the German people. There is nothing that the ruling class of this country could offer the German working class that would be worth the sacrifice of the life of a single member of the German proletariat. It is not a real appeal, and I therefore say that if you want to have success in Germany, there are only two kinds of revolution you can urge. There must be political change, whether it is Goering or the generals or not—for after all, this country flirted for a time with the idea of a substitution of Goering for Hitler; it was my assumption at the time of the cellar bomb that it was a plot to destroy Hitler, Himmler and company and substitute Goering. Is that the kind of revolution you mean to appeal for over the wireless? I cannot believe it, because

whether there is to be only political change of masters, or a deep economic revolution, you must make up your minds which of the two you are going to back. If you are to back an appeal for political change, you will only get what happened after the last war, and more preparations for another struggle, because if there is to be a real change in Germany, it must be a proletarian change.

Mr. Logan: Does the hon. Member think that if the I.L.P. were to be established in Germany, that would bring the revolution about?

Mr. McGovern: No. I do not think the German people have a better mentality than the people in Britain, and as we cannot get a majority in Britain, I do not expect to get it in Germany, or we should not be discussing the problem to-day. It is something intelligent which I am suggesting, although it is not acceptable. If you make up your minds to appeal to the German people, you will have to face the fact that the only way in which you can end this struggle for supremacy is to end the cause of the struggle for supremacy. The struggle for supremacy is an Imperialist struggle. Russia got rid of that basis by her revolution; this country did not, and neither did Germany. Therefore you must have something intelligent and real to say to the German people, because the only change that can mean any real change in Germany is a change that will have its echo in this country. You can say to the German people, "Look here, if you are prepared to go in for an economic revolution, we will show you the example, because we in this country are prepared to end our exploitation throughout the world, we are prepared to adopt a classless society, to get rid of the classes and of the bond-holding interests, that we are prepared to control the banks, land, capital and industry; therefore we are showing you an example of the way to that new world." The key how to get rid of Hitler is to get rid of your own Hitlers in this country.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Might I ask a serious question? What is the essential difference between the economic system set up in Germany—

The Deputy-Chairman: That has nothing to do with the question before the Committee.

Mr. McGovern: I am very much obliged to you, Colonel Clifton Brown, for protecting me against these interjections, which would only lead me far from my point. We have to set an example. As I have pointed out, this propaganda which goes on continually has to take note of the fact that there are millions of people in Germany to-day who genuinely believe that they are fighting for something worth while. You have to undermine that feeling. The question is, How are you going to undermine it? You will not undermine it simply by attack after attack. I was glad when I heard an hon. Member saying that we must disabuse our minds of the idea that every political refugee is telling the truth. One thing we have suffered from is all this humbug about happenings inside Germany. Terrible happenings have gone on. When I was in Germany I heard of them at firsthand. If this type of story that is true could be recounted it would be of inestimable value. After my tour I gave a lecture in Glasgow on events in Germany. One newspaper asked me to write three articles on phases of that—the attitude towards Communists and Socialists, the attitude towards the Christian religion, and thirdly the attitude towards the Jews. I refused at that time, because I did not want to help rouse the feelings of the public against Germany at that stage.
I say that if you are to get rid of this hypocrisy, humbug and falsehood going round you have to realise that there are millions in Germany who want peace, who want an end to war, who do not wish their sons to be lying mangled on battlefields or frozen to death on the Eastern front, who are thinking in terms of peace with honour and decency. You have to touch the heart chords of those people, you have to touch their mental processes, and rouse in them the sense of an idea that you are prepared to give to the German people something decent and fine, and that you do not intend to ostracise the whole of the German people as some writers and speakers do. I believe humanity is pretty much the same all over the world. They are all appealed to by false promises, in the struggles in which they are engaged, by many politicians, on many occasions, on the wireless or on the public platform. We have to remember the old saying that the ordinary man lies down for what the

ordinary politician stands up for. If we can get rid of the idea that the German people have to be ostracised, we can make an appeal to them. I would make a more genuinely decent appeal than is made by a large number of the blimps who make appeals through the B.B.C. and the Ministry of Information. If the Minister of Information wishes to do a real service to shorten the war and bring about a better state of society, he should advise the Government that a fundamental change is essential before we can talk in moral tones to the German people. They know our history of struggle to build an Empire; they know of our exploitation of the masses in that Empire; they know of the shameless wages of 2d. and 3d. a day that we pay to the people in that Empire. There is nothing in that to appeal to the German masses to overthrow Hitler and substitute Churchill. I say to the Minister of Information: Get decent propaganda, treat the German people as human beings, and make a genuine appeal for an all-in struggle for a better world, in which the whole of the resources of the world shall be used for the betterment of the human race.

Dr. Russell Thomas: I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would refer to the recent decision to rebroadcast American news bulletins to Europe through the B.B.C. I was very glad to see this system instituted. It began on the 1st February. At present there are three broadcasts a day; one to Germany at 3.15, one to France at 4.15, and one to Italy at 11.45. They take the usual course of broadcasts, starting with the playing of an American national air, then giving a review of the news, then a talk on general subjects, and closing with another American tune. They begin, I think, with the words "United States calling Europe through the B.B.C." I wish the Minister would seriously consider increasing the number of these rebroadcasts through B.B.C. channels. They are of immense importance, far more important, I think, than some of the wretched stuff that we put over ourselves again and again to Germany, France, and Italy. I believe that the Europeans would pay more attention to American broadcasts than to British broadcasts. I believe that for several reasons.
The main reason is that before the last war Europe sent to America millions of


its inhabitants. To-day there are living in European countries people who have relatives in America, people who know those relatives, or whose fathers, uncles and grandfathers knew them; and these relatives in America were constantly sending home money to Europe. I believe that the Europeans would listen more sympathetically to rebroadcasts from America than to the broadcasts which are constantly going out to them from ourselves. America represents to them the land where their progenitors have sought their fortune, and, that, not without success, so that they are able to send money home. I believe that the people in Europe would think that American broadcasts were done with sincerity, whereas English broadcasts would be suspect. Some of the people of European countries, especially in the Balkans and Italy, depended partly upon America for their income. When I was in Montenegro a few years ago, I was informed that half the inhabitants of Cetinje were pensioners, living on money received from American relatives. I also think that the Englishman is not always completely acceptable to many of the European people. When we travelled abroad, we were frequently regarded as arrogant people, who owned a large portion of the earth's surface and its wealth. Again and again, on the Continent, one met with a good deal of respect, but mixed with a great deal of envy. I believe that they regard us with some suspicion. So I want the right hon. Gentleman to pay particular attention to increasing the number of American broadcasts.
We have heard a great deal about our propaganda to Germany. Germany is not the only country we have to consider. There are many other countries in Europe to which we should constantly apply our propaganda, but we should do it with the greatest care. We should not put over flippant matter. We should consider carefully the character of a country and do what we intend to do very seriously, not using young men who happen to have some knowledge of the language and leaving them recklessly to walk in and put over the news and all sorts of other frivolous matter. If we consider carefully the character of the countries to which we broadcast I feel that we could do a tremendous amount of good. Particularly, I have in mind Italy. Indeed, we might

not only find a possibility of shortening the war but of laying down the seeds of good will when the war is over, so that in Italy we should have a country which would come alongside us in the renewed birth of freedom. I do not listen very carefully to these broadcasts, but when we are broadcasting to Italy no doubt we put on, among others, the usual jazz records. We must be very careful about the music intended for the Italian people. That is most important. Every programme to Italy should contain music, and music which has been chosen with great care. The first thing to do is to rivet the attention of the Italians, and nothing does that better than good music; and that is not jazz music. Even broadcasts for the Italian peasants should invariably include grand opera. We should start our programmes with selections of grand opera and intersperse them with selections from them. As I have said, it is the one way above all others by which to rivet their attention.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: rose—

Dr. Thomas: I am not going to give way. I have sat here a very long time, and I intend to go on. Then I think we should constantly show that we are a people who are on the side of freedom. That is very important, although it may sound rather strange, seeing that Italy is living now under a totalitarian régime. Italians have been under the thumb of other peoples for hundreds of years, chiefly Germanic peoples from the North, or great families or kings bolstered frequently by Germanic and other influences. An united Italy is of quite recent date. Many of our fathers remember the days when the unity of Italy was first achieved. Although Italy has suffered for 20 years from Fascism, I can assure this Committee that the average Italian has no liking for Fascism. He accepted Fascism after the last war when he found there was no hope, when things were chaotic and he felt there was no alternative; but the Italian is instinctively a lover of liberty, and we ought constantly to make use of that fact and to play on the Italian love for liberty. Another thing we ought to do is to try and resuscitate the bonds of friendship which exist, or did exist, between ourselves and the Italian people. That friendship was a very real thing. England always encouraged the movements for liberation in


Italy. The leading figures in the Risorgimento were largely encouraged by England. Gladstone went a long way, both diplomatically and otherwise, to encourage the Italian people. In fact, even before the Risorgimento took place Mazzini, at his home in London, in his newspaper "Pensiero ed azione," which he published at the time, wrote this of us in 1858:—
England, a land where a long and educative liberty has given birth to a lofty consciousness of the dignity and respect of the individual.
That attitude towards us still represents the mind and the desire of the Italian people. They feel that we are the people who realise what real liberty is, and although their liberty has now been crushed for 20 years, it is still their secret desire. In the course of our propaganda we should constantly bear these things in mind. The other thing to do is carefully to study the religion of a country like Italy. You will say that it is a Roman Catholic country. It is the home of Roman Catholicism. Anyone who knows the Italian will realise that religion Js almost a stereotyped exercise of the Italian; but the Italian underneath is an intellectual and a somewhat cynical person.
We should constantly promise the Italians, when the war is over, to help them to a freer and better economic life. Italy is a poor country. The Italian peasant is very poor and works very hard. Although I have heard in this House remarks about Italian prisoners in this country who do not do their full whack—it may be because of the climate—I know that the Italian labourers in the foothills of the Alps and the Appenines work very hard for a mere pittance. Italy is a country which has had to get most of its raw materials from abroad. In fact it has no raw materials of any account, One-third only of Italy is arable land, and before the last war Italy was sending 500,000 emigrants per year to the United States. That was stopped, and the condition of the Italian labourer became worse. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in providing for Italian broadcasts, constantly to tell the Italians that they will partake eventually in a greater, better and freer life. He will be proceeding on the right lines and perhaps perceptibly shortening the war, but at any rate he will be laying down the foundations of

future brotherhood and co-operation so that this catastrophe will not occur again.

Mr. Silverman: I find myself in the position of wanting to offer sympathy to the Minister who sooner or later will have to reply to this rather varied Debate. If he wants to satisfy everybody from those who wanted political propaganda among the Italian people to be conducted with performances of grand opera, to those who wanted political propaganda to Germany to be conducted along lines of revenge, the only way to do it is to cease to have any political propaganda and broadcasts at all. I am entirely with those who believe that we are not going to win the war by broadcasts. The hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) says that the best kind of propaganda is propaganda by example. I am entirely of that way of thinking myself, but I would say to him too, that this country will not have much chance of showing an example to anybody about anything, unless it can get itself out of the mess in which it now finds itself with regard to the war. There has been an air of complete and, I think, deliberate unreality about all that part of the Debate which ha; concerned broadcasts to Germany. We have had the interesting spectacle of something almost like a conspiracy between hon. Members opposite, or if not a conspiracy an organised and concerted plan to attack a particular broadcast. It is plain that it has been concerted and deliberate. Hon. Members have each had quotations and it has been most remarkable.

Mr. Pickthorn: Since the hon. Gentleman has mentioned this point, I wish to say that so far as I know it has not in any way been concerted.

Mr. Silverman: I accept what the hon. Member says. I do not know why he should have been left out. His own contribution ought to be very welcome to those who spoke along the same lines.

Mr. H. Strauss: I do not believe anybody who is interested in our propaganda to Germany can possibly ignore the frequent contributions from Mr. Crossman. If you are to talk about the subject at all you must, at least, mention these contributions.

Mr. Silverman: I have not complained, and I do not complain, of any hon. Member of this House, while he is a Member,


making any comment on anything which is relevant to the subject of the Debate, but what is a really remarkable coincidence is that so many speakers on that side of the House should have fastened on a particular broadcaster and his speeches and should apparently have distributed among themselves quotations from his speeches in order to support what seems to me a planned, deliberate and concerted attack. It is an attack which is without any kind of justification at all. The hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss) said that Mr. Crossman's broadcasts were valueless, dangerous, absurd and, I think he said, ridiculous. What was the example out of one of Mr. Crossman's broadcasts which he advanced in order to prove his argument? It appears that Mr. Crossman had endeavoured to prove to the German people that Hitler was not infallible. That seemed to the hon. Member to be an absurd line to choose—

Mr. Strauss: May I ask the hon. Member—

Mr. Silverman: No, I do not intend to give way.

Mr. Strauss: Well, if you intend to misrepresent me—

Mr. Silverman: I am repeating what the hon. Member said. Whether he meant it or not, he must decide for himself. He said that Mr. Crossman, in advancing to the German people a proposition that Hitler was not infallible, was doing something ridiculous and that this was a ridiculous way of trying to present our case to the German people. Well, I do not agree.

Mr. Strauss: I do not think that the hon. Member can wish to misrepresent me. What I said was that Mr. Crossman constantly repeated that the Third Reich was based on the myth of Hitler's infallibility, after Hitler himself had asserted that he had not made seven mistakes but some 700 mistakes. To go on repeating his allegation of the myth after Hitler's statement was stupid and quite ineffective. I do not blame Mr. Crossman or anybody else for saying that Hitler is not infallible.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Member is almost as patronising and supercilious in his interventions as he is in his contribu-

tions in Debate. Maybe he is as all-righteous and all-knowing as he pretends but he must allow other Members of the Committee to have their own view. I have said nothing at all which has misrepresented him. I cannot say everything at once but I will try to do him justice. Undoubtedly, he said that Mr. Crossman appealed to the German people not to continue to believe that Hitler was infallible, because, he said, Hitler had himself denied that he had made any claim to infallibility. The hon. Member ventured to describe as nonsense something that was said by somebody who is not a Member of the House, and perhaps I may be permitted to say that, in my opinion, if there is one article of the Nazi creed that seems to be generally admitted, it is the principle that the Führer is always right. The greatest claim of Hitler to the loyalty of the German people is the claim that the Führer is always right. I think that Mr. Crossman was pursuing a very valuable line in pointing out to the German people that, far from Hitler being always right, he is often wrong, and that in the end he will be proved to have been more wrong than anybody else in Europe. So valuable was that sort of appeal to the German people that the hon. Member seemed to think that, whether in reply to that speech or other similar speeches, Hitler had gone out of his way to make another broadcast to the German people disposing of that sort of appeal. It seems to me that hon. Members, before attacking in the House people who know far more about these subjects than they do, attacking those people in their absence and in a place where they cannot defend themselves, ought to take the trouble to ascertain the facts and find out what was the argument which they are pleased to describe as nonsense, ridiculous, and absurd.
There are other unreal things in this Debate. It seems to be assumed by a great many people who, before the war, displayed Fascist sympathies in Debates in this House, that those of us who believe that political warfare is a valuable weapon of victory regard it as being a substitute for victory. We do nothing of the kind. Nobody with any knowledge of the facts would deny that at this moment the bulk of the German people is fighting solidly behind Hitler. It is the business of those who do not want


Germany to win to fight back and see that Germany does not win. There is no dispute about that. Those who say that there are other elements in Germany have never pretended that the other elements are in control. No one is under any illusion about the fact that the majority of the German people is behind Hitler in the war. But hon. Members opposite are content to leave the matter there. We are not content to do that. They are defeatists. They assume that because the majority of the German people is solidly behind Hitler at this moment, then inevitably the majority always will be solidly behind him, and that therefore it is not worth making any appeal or approach to those who are our Allies on the Continent of Europe. We think that such an appeal is one of the essential weapons of war. We think that the weapon that will take us quickest towards victory is to divide the German people from Hitler, to divide the bulk of the German people, or as big a proportion as we can, from Hitler.
When the hon. Member opposite pokes fun at those who would like to see a revolution in Germany because some would like to see one kind of revolution and some another kind, he has not begun to understand what are the problems and conditions of victory. From the narrowest military point of view, any kind of revolution in Germany will do, anything that weakens the German effort will do, anything that divides the German people will do. The hon. Member does a very great disservice to our war effort when he pretends that there is something wrong in making different kinds of appeals to different sections of the German people. From the narrow military point of view, that is a useful and valuable thing to do. I hope the Minister will not listen to those superior, arrogant and supercilious people who advise him that there is something wrong about it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Listen only to you."] I hope the Minister will listen to them and answer them, but I hope he will not heed them.

Wing-Commander James: When the hon. Member talks about "our" war effort, will he explain what his was in the last war and is in this?

Mr. Silverman: I will not reply to that.

Viscountess Astor: Why not?

The Deputy-Chairman: That question was quite irrelevant.

Mr. George Griffiths: It was a dirty insult.

Mr. Silverman: I can say what is within the recollection of the Committee, and that is, that I never supported the friends of Germany and Italy in closing the Mediterranean to our warships, as they are doing to-day. I never advised the people of this country to compromise with Fascism or Nazism, as the hon. Member devoted most of his political life to do in this House. I will leave it there. It seems to me that you have on the Continent of Europe, millions of ordinary common decent folk who desire nothing out of life but a reasonable measure of security for their labour, a reasonable measure of reward, a reasonable standard of living and protection from the recurrent fear of war. Is there nothing there to which we can appeal? If you are going to appeal to the people in Germany or in occupied countries, is it irrelevant to consider why they should divorce themselves from Hitler; is it irrelevant to consider what will happen to them if they do, and is it irrelevant to consider what kind of world is to follow the war?
The common people everywhere, as far as I understand it, are quite determined that they will never go back and will not allow Europe to go back to the days before the war, which the hon. Member is so proud about and for which he has worked so earnestly. Europe is passing through the birth-throes of a new age. So far, the only European leader, or pseudo-leader, who has offered any kind of description of what it is all to end in, is Hitler, and the great failure of our propaganda so far has been that we have neglected the importance of ourselves painting an alternative picture, which the peoples of occupied Europe and Germany can set side by side with Hitler's and choose between the two. I think that is a serious omission—the failure to define peace aims and the failure to put them over attractively so that the people of Europe may see what we are striving for and what it is we are inviting them to help us to achieve.
The hon. Member just now asked me about Stalin. Let me assure him that I have not forgotten Stalin or Russia. Russia has put forward an alternative


plan, or at any rate has conceived an alternative plan. Is the hon. Member prepared to accept it? Does he not think that the people of this country are entitled to know what they are fighting for and what they are to look forward to when all the blood and all the tragedy have passed? We shall lose the war, psychologically first and physically and actually afterwards, unless that omission is rectified. Someone talked about the "leftish" and the "pinkish," and someone on this side pointed out that the Russians do not make those mistakes. It is possible that they do not make them because they are neither "leftish" nor "pinkish" but plain red, and everyone knows exactly where they stand. I am not asking that this or that philosophy of life should be adopted, but, if you hope to win allies in Europe, if you hope to persuade the common people of Germany, or any occupied country, to take the enormous risks of working underground against this terrible machine, you must not merely assume that it is their moral duty to assist. You can only do it by inviting them to stand with us, to work with us equally, co-operatively and constructively for a new world. When the Government make up their mind to do that, they will have something to put over, and may then succeed in putting it over more intelligibly than they have done so far.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: For a moment might it not be as well to remind ourselves that every Debate that has taken place on the question of foreign propaganda has taken the same line, and the line can almost definitely be discovered as between those who think to the Right and those who think to the Left? It is a curious phenomenon which is not unknown in our criticisms of our home broadcasts. There are always those whose minds are closed to kindly reception of anything that does not fit in entirely with their own personal political points of view. I believe that a Debate on foreign broadcasts from the propaganda point of view does more harm than would be done if it did not take place. Propaganda, if it is to be of real value, should, in my opinion, be so concealed within other statements as to be undetected as propaganda at all. I believe that the reaction in the mind of the

human being, which is built up against what is openly declared to be propaganda, very largely destroys the value of the propaganda. I wonder whether those in charge of the B.B.C., and possibly their advisers in the Ministry of Information, have sufficient knowledge of the different ingredients which go to make up the populations of foreign countries. I sometimes wonder whether they fully realise that our own country is made up of people who hold differing views. As an example of that, I think one might quote the most unfortunate dispute and clash of opinion which have arisen on the question of certain types of religious broadcasts which are not only listened to in this country but are heard far afield. Is it altogether wise that that type of broadcast should continue building up bad feeling in a large section of the population of this country?

The Minister of Information (Mr. Brendan Bracken): Of what broadcast is my hon. Friend speaking?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I do not want to go into detail, because I might be out of Order. I am only quoting this as justification for my doubt. It is clear that there is considerable dispute and feeling in this country between those who are supposed to study popular opinion on the question of religious broadcasts as to whether the impersonation of the voice of Christ should be heard on the air.

The Deputy-Chairman: That comes under home broadcasting and does not come under the Vote for foreign broadcasting.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am quoting it as justification of my doubt whether those responsible for the broadcasting service are making close enough study of the make-up of the people abroad who listen to our broadcasting.
I want to turn to the figures which the Committee are now discussing. We are asked to consider a Supplementary Estimate of a considerable amount—£1,300,000, an increase pf about 25 per cent. on the original Estimate. I wonder seriously whether the whole of that amount would have been put before the Committee if there had not been wild extravagance within the B.B.C. If they had not spent their money so wildly in other directions, would they not have


been able to present a smaller Supplementary Estimate? I wonder whether the Minister can put his hand on his heart, or any other part of his anatomy which may be more suitable, and say, in all truth, that he can assure the Committee that there has been no extravagance by the B.B.C.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid that that is going outside this Vote, which is for foreign broadcasting. The hon. Member is now trying to include the whole expense of broadcasting, both at home and abroad.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I was attempting to suggest that if the B.B.C. had exercised reasonable care in the expenditure of their funds, the Minister of Information would not now be asking the Committee for a Supplementary Estimate of such a large amount.

The Deputy-Chairman: That would open the discussion to home broadcasting, and it is, therefore, out of Order on this Vote.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: May I put it in this way? Will the Minister, again using the same gesture, assure the Committee that greater economies will be exercised in carrying out the overseas broadcasts than have been exercised in producing the home performances? If we are to judge by the expenditure of money on the home broadcasts, we must have some fear that gross extravagance will be exercised on the overseas broadcasts. I ask the Minister seriously whether he will pledge himself to keep a close eye on the way in which this money is expended.

Viscountess Astor: I want to say a few words following the speech of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman). I thought that in one part of his speech he was rather offensive, but I agree with the last part. When we talk about foreign propaganda, we have to remember that all over Europe there are millions of people like the people in this country who really want a new world and who did not want this war. They are living under dictatorships and it is not easy for them to get from under those dictatorships, but we have not, so far, appealed to that particular strata. I know something about the women of Europe because in 1938 I went to an international conference at

Copenhagen which was attended by women from all over the world. There were no German women representing their government because no German women had attended international conferences since Hitler came to power. I was howled down by women from the section from England when I said that England would fight. I went there particularly to tell them so. Some of the more complete pacifists were trying to say that it was not so.
I feel that the Government, particularly in their overseas broadcasts, lack what I might call spiritual values. It is no use saying that there are no people in other countries who will respond to those values; those are the only things that bring a universal response. People who do not feel them need not try to put them over. There is nothing in the world so coarse as someone who loathes everything in Germany, trying to "propaganda" in German. I know that there are people here who put spiritual values first. Although I have been dubbed a Fascist, I loathe dictators, Right and Left. I do not hold with them. I am a thoroughgoing democrat because I believe that, where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty, and where the spirit of the dictators is, there is no liberty. I want that to be thoroughly understood. Somehow the Government have not harnessed here at home that thing which is deep in the people of England. They do not realise how offensive it is when anybody makes a speech and talks about our wanting to hate more. We know that hate is no use. It only weakens you for your job. Anybody who hates the Germans ought not to speak to them. There are people who hate Nazism, but still like the people of Germany. Those are the people who should appeal to the Germans and who would get a response from them.
I beg the Government not to put people up to conduct propaganda who have not those values in their hearts. Such people get no response. Everybody knows that this country will fight to the last man and woman. We may be going through a bad patch now, but we shall not give in to dictators and certainly not to the Nazis. I ask the Government to consider what I have said. I know a woman who would be magnificent in regard to Germany. She spent years going over there and getting into touch with the Christian part of


Germany. She would be magnificent to broadcast, but has not been asked. I know a great many other people in this country who feel exactly the same way. They loathed Nazism long before any of us did in this House. They understood it and dreaded it, but they are never asked to broadcast. There ought to be a little more idealism and vision in the B.B.C. I am rather frightened of the sort of Foreign Office touch that we are getting. If there is one thing true about this country it is that it is strongly protestant. We are a protesting people. If we were not, we should not be where we are now. We should be like Europe. We should not have loved freedom of thought. The B.B.C. ought to be very careful of the kind of people they are putting at the head of their talks.

Mr. Bracken: Would the Noble Lady tell me exactly what she means?

Viscountess Astor: I think the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well what I mean. You must have what I might call a protestant point of view. We are fighting against Europe, where people have never protested—if they have, they have not gone very far. Look at Italy, France, Spain and all those countries. They are living in a sort of ecclesiastical despotism. We do not want that sort of thought here. We want free thought, protestant thought, if I may put it quite frankly, and I feel that a lot of us have thought for a long time that the Foreign Office is far too un-protestant really to represent the country. The same thought is getting into the B.B.C. and it is dangerous although the country does not realise it yet. May I ask another question? The bright young men have had their way now for some years, but will the right hon. Gentleman pay a little more attention to those who know where the best brains are to be found? I do not mean the women in the House of Commons, because, as I said the other day to a collection of women, the cleverest men and the cleverest women in the country are not in the House of Commons. We know that the best brains do not even try to get here, I wish they did. But we, as politicians, know, if we know anything, where the best brains are, and I wish a little more attention could be paid to those who do know.
A word or two about the Austrian broadcasts. I have not heard them myself, but I have heard from those who listen that they are lamentable and, of course, as for our broadcasts of music, I do not think they are really very wise. After all, most of the good music we hear over the wireless is foreign. I am not a musician and I do not understand it myself, but I hear that complaint. Above all, I appeal to the B.B.C. to put on to their foreign propaganda people who really feel and care about the war and what it is for. An hon. Member has said that the world is fighting to go back to where it was. You cannot go back. Even God cannot bring back the past, and I do not think many people want it back. We want a new world, a world built not on speeches and not on sham, because we have had enough sham, we have been led up the garden path for years by people talking about brotherhood when they did not know what it was. I used to say in the House of Commons, why should certain people talk about their love for Russia? Why love people they did not know and could not see? Why not try it at home?

The Deputy-Chairman: The Noble Lady is talking of affairs at home. The Vote is for broadcasting abroad.

Viscountess Astor: I was talking about things I wanted to happen and the world the B.B.C. is trying to build up abroad. We want a new kind of world and we are fighting for it. I believe it is the kind of new world which will appeal to thousands of people abroad. Do not let us put out hate. Do not let us be afraid to tell the people abroad that we are fighting as much for them as for the people at home. So far you have not done that, and I believe the reason is that you have not got the right kind of people to do it. Words without feeling are clouds without rain.

Sir Irving Albery: I want to deal only with the question of finance, which has scarcely been touched upon in this Debate. On this Estimate it is specially noted that the accounts of the British Broadcasting Corporation will not be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. The point to which I want to draw attention is this. Originally, as has been explained by the Parliamentary Secretary, the British Broadcasting


Corporation was financed by a fixed percentage; in other words, they ran their own show, they got their own revenue and it was their own concern how they spent it. They had to do the best they could with the money. That is completely changed at the present moment, and they now have to draw an amount largely in excess of what was originally allotted to them on the percentage basis. They have to obtain that amount through the Ministry of Information and I cannot for the life of me see why, in the altered circumstances, this Vote should not be subject to the audit of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. It is one of the safeguards upon which this House of Commons has always insisted in similar circumstances, and it certainly is a very great safeguard. The Comptroller and Auditor-General draws the attention of the Public Accounts Committee to all cases where he thinks extravagance has occurred or expenditure has not been looked after as it ought to have been. I should like the Minister when he replies to say, if he can, what grounds there are, if any, in present circumstances for not having these accounts audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

The Minister of Information (Mr. Brendan Bracken): The Committee has had a grand day, and there is not very much left for me to say. In a Debate on an Estimate only two Members have touched upon any aspects of finance. I wish to explain to the Committee—perhaps they do not all recollect—what the Prime Minister said on nth September last regarding the Political Warfare Executive. He said that this Executive had already begun its work but that it would be contrary to the national interest to make any public statement regarding its personnel or the nature of its activities. I am only one of a trinity, and none of my colleagues has authorised me to make any statement to-day.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I had understood that the Minister was to reply on behalf of his two right hon. Friends who formed this trinity.

Mr. Bracken: No, my right hon. Friends have not authorised me to answer everything. A large number of the points raised in this Debate are points which must be kept secret. But my respect for this Committee is so great that if I make a mistake, I shall be rebuked by my colleagues

but praised, I hope, by the Committee. To the hon. and gallant Member for Ormskirk (Commander King - Hall) I would say that we well understand the necessity for taking the most effective action in China, but cannot go into any details as to how we shall lay our plans. The hon. and gallant Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), who speaks with great knowledge on all affairs appertaining to the B.B.C., to-day spoke about the relations between Governors of the B.B.C. and the House of Commons. I cannot agree with him. The Ministry of Information still has the responsibility. I would be glad if the Committee would hand over to the B.B.C. such questions as those to which he refers. If the Committee likes to initiate this new reform, I shall not be an objector. There is a contradictory attitude adopted by Members of this Committee. Some get up and ask me why their speeches were not reported. Another Member gets up and says there is too much Government interference with the B.B.C. How can I conform with both points of view? I must say to the hon. and gallant Member for Lonsdale that the relationship between the B.B.C. and the Government must, for the duration of the war, be anomalous.
The hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss) asked me why the House of Commons is not supplied with copies of the leaflets we have dropped over Germany, and he quite rightly said that as the Germans received them they could not contain any military secret. He has pointed out that I have adopted an attitude of mulish obstinacy on this point. I am a member of a committee of three. I do not think my colleagues are willing to relax the rule, but nevertheless I will raise it again without holding out the faintest hope to the hon. Gentleman that they are likely to change their course.

Mr. Martin: In view of the great urgency of this question, would the Minister consider with his two colleagues the question of coming here, if necessary in Secret Session, and learning some of these very important questions which the Committee desires to raise, not only with regard to gaining a quick victory but post-war planning?

Mr. Bracken: I am glad to say that the Political Warfare Executive have nothing to do with post-war planning—that is done by other Ministers. I can hardly


imagine three Ministers coming to the Box, one after another, in Secret Session, and each giving his own views of how we should conduct political warfare abroad. I think my hon. Friend has got the whole story completely wrong, but I do not want to go into the matter in any detail now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) described himself as a Tory. I must say that he is a most crusted Tory. I enjoyed his speech, but with most of it I did not agree. When he read us a list of names of eminent broadcasters, some of them Members of this House, and said, "All these gentlemen belong to the Left; no Tories are ever invited," I wondered whether it had ever occurred to him that our Socialist friends are in the habit of claiming that the great highbrows generally belong to their party. Also, I wish some Tories would learn how to broadcast as well as these "pinkish-leftists." If they did, I can assure my hon. Friend that the B.B.C. would give them ample opportunities. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the necessity for veracity and dignity on the part of the B.B.C. I think that his own attitude to these points was absolutely splendid, and if there are any further vacancies among the Governors, he can be certain that men holding his point of view will be put into those places. He also said, what I thought quite right, that there is a very bad tendency to call for too much broadcasting. I often find myself listening to the home news bulletins. When there is no news, the bulletin is padded out a great deal. There is also repetition in the foreign services. I would advise my hon. Friend to look out for that. There was one passage in my hon. Friend's speech which I did not like at all. That was his reference to Mr. Cross-man. My hon. Friend dug up something which Mr. Crossman had said years ago. What would happen to us if our speeches of eight or 10 years ago were dug up? That is a most unfair type of political attack, and to find a representative of a famous Liberal university adopting such tactics bewilders me.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Wales (Mr. E. Evans) made an excellent contribution to this Debate. He talked about the value of news and facts. There can be no

doubt that the best form of British publicity is what is called straight news. The reputation of the B.B.C. throughout the world for veracity gives it millions of foreign hearers. Dr. Goebbels would give his eyes to get a publicity medium equal to the B.B.C. As for his point about Empire broadcasting, that is outside the scope of this Estimate altogether.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chatham (Captain Plugge), who is a great technical authority, on broadcasting, asked a number of questions about gear from the United States and whether we have increased our stations. I am sorry to appear such a Blimp when I tell him that I cannot give that information, because there are security reasons for not disclosing it. But I will bring before my colleagues his suggestion that each refugee Government—as he describes them—should have a station of their own. There, again, technical points which I do not fully understand are involved in the suggestion. He also raised a point about Gibraltar. I do not wish to go into that now, but I can tell him that his, analysis of the facts does not conform with mine. Then he raised an important point about jamming. That, again, is a large matter of policy which I could not possibly discuss here to-day. But taking it all in all I hope the B.B.C. engineers will read the speech of my hon. Friend, to which I will call their attention, and I hope they will benefit from his wide knowledge.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) said quite rightly that victories were important to political warfare, and I think we shall have to have a very different picture before us before we can put fear into the hearts of our enemies by the methods of political warfare. He gave a character sketch of Germany which I, in my private capacity, must regard as a masterpiece, though I am expressing no opinion upon it as Minister of Information. He also raised a question of closer contact between Britain and Russia in propaganda work. It is now many months since the Ministry of Information sent its then Director-General to Moscow to meet the Soviet authorities and concert some adequate propaganda arrangements.

Sir C. Headlam: Did he not afterwards go on to Cairo and not come back here?

Mr. Bracken: My hon. and gallant Friend is perfectly right. But it really is possible in these days to send a report here without coming back with it. There are not many civil aeroplanes about, and he was due in Cairo. There was no reason why he should come all the way back to London to present a report to me in person, and he sent it through diplomatic channels. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss), in a speech which I greatly enjoyed, though I disagree with some parts of it, also made the point about military victories, and he is absolutely right. Of course, propaganda will be most effective after the herrenvolk have had two or three very good hidings. It is no good telling them in advance what is going to happen to them when they are constantly getting news of successes by their own forces or those of their Allies. Then my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Newcastle (Sir C. Headlam) said that abuse on the radio was a poor instrument. I entirely agree. I cannot go very deeply into the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), but apparently he wants the P.W.E., which consists of a number of respectable but rather ageing men, to organise a revolution, whether here or in Germany I was not quite sure. I understood he thought we had better start a revolution here in order to make our overseas broadcasting more successful. Well, the temptation is very great. If we are invited to do that, we will look to him for the proper technical advice. He also made a remark about the Prime Minister which I think was in his best vein of humour. He suggested that the Germans are going to revolt in order that the Prime Minister may become their Fuehrer. I think that is fine.

Mr. McGovern: They do not.

Mr. Bracken: My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Dr. Thomas) spoke about the recording of American broadcasts. It is a technical question, and, we will give the maximum amount of space to these records. He also suggested that we should give the Italians more music. I personally would give them more bombs. I do not believe in the cultural values of music sent over the short wave to alter the ways of the dictators. The hon. Gentleman the Member

for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman), who was kind enough to say that he sympathised with me owing to the wide range of this Debate, made one or two remarks. He suggested that we had no alternative to Hitler's new order. I can only tell him that he must never have heard of the Atlantic Charter.

Mr. Silverman: I did not say that we had no alternative. I hope that we have. I believe that we have or I should take a very different view. What I said was that we have never formulated an alternative and put it attractively to the people of Europe.

Mr. Bracken: On the contrary. Every day and every night we have done our very best through every propagandist channel to put the Atlantic Charter before the peoples of Europe. If the hon. Member would like to see some examples of that, I shall be very glad to show them to him. The noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) made a speech which I thought in a way was deplorable. Religious bigotry is un-English, undemocratic and wholly harmful. To bring religious prejudice to bear against anyone occupying a high position at the B.B.C. is a monstrous injury to our public life.

Viscountess Astor: I did not say that. I said it was a point of view which was un-English. I said that I thought that the B.B.C. was getting too much of the tone of the Foreign Office. The right hon. Member knows that no Department of State has had more criticism levelled at it than the Foreign Office. I do not want to see the Foreign Office mind transferred to the B.B.C.

Mr. Bracken: I am sorry that I cannot accept criticisms of the Foreign Office, and I do not like my Noble Friend's explanation. I have very little time left, but I want to say a word about what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery), who mentioned the only really competent financial contribution to this Debate. I will look into his point, and do my best to meet his desires. I thank hon. Members for this extraordinarily animated Debate. I have tried to answer many of the questions that have been brought forward, but, as I have said, hon. Members have answered most of each other's questions. I will merely


sit down by saying, as it is my duty to say, that, on the whole, our foreign propaganda is reasonably good. I will give the reason why I make this claim. It is because Dr. Goebbels is constantly abusing it, because the German Government will not allow their people to listen to our broadcasts, and because, over a large range of Europe, the B.B.C. is the sole hope from a news point of view of a large number of suffering people. It is a great mistake to encourage these constant attacks upon the B.B.C., which is a most potent instrument for political warfare and is served by some of the most diligent and enterprising people in this country.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,300,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for a grant in aid of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

CLASS II.

COLONIAL AND MIDDLE EASTERN SERVICES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £724,257, he granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for sundry Colonial and Middle Eastern Services under His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including certain non-effective services and grants in aid.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I wondered whether it might be for the convenience of the Committee if we might be allowed formally to pass the Committee stage of this Supplementary Estimate. There is a number of points which some hon. Members wish to raise, and it would be of assistance to the Government if they could be postponed until the Report stage. There is not time to raise them to-day, and this is an Estimate which I know hon. Members wish to discuss.

Mr. Creech Jones: I hope the procedure suggested by the right hon. Gentleman can be adopted. The hour is late, and there are very many points on this Estimate which we would like to raise. Perhaps on the Report stage we may have an opportunity of raising them then.

The Deputy-Chairman: That has nothing to do with me. So far as I am concerned, I think any points can be raised on Report. If Members like to pass the Committee stage now, they can do so.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS V.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND NATIONAL SERVICE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,450,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Labour and National Service, including sums Payable by the Exchequer to the Unemployment Fund, grants to local authorities, associations and other bodies in respect of unemployment insurance, employment exchange and other services; expenses of transfer and resettlement; expenses of training; contribution toward: the expenses of the International Labour Organisation (League of Nations); expenses of the Industrial Court; and sundry services.

Mr. Buchanan: Are we to have no explanation of this Estimate from the Parliamentary Secretary?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. McCorquodale): Yes, Sir, but my right hon. Friend suggested, I think, that both these Estimates should be discussed on the Report stage rather than now, and I thought that was the general wish of hon. Members.

Mr. Buchanan: I am sorry I did not hear that. I am not so much concerned about the Colonies, but there are one or two things connected with the Ministry of Labour which I wish to raise. I know the limitations of this Vote, but I also realise that one can speak only once on Report, whereas the value of Committee stage Debates is that there can be a good deal of cross-talk between Members and Ministers. I have no wish to be troublesome now, but I think we ought to preserve our Committee procedure where we can to enable Members and Ministers to indulge in freer talk.

The Deputy-Chairman: Perhaps I might point out that this is a very limited Vote.

Mr. Buchanan: I know its limitations, but I do not think that would prevent me from having a good deal to say.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported upon the next Sitting Day; Committee to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY [4th February].

Resolutions reported:

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1941.

CLASS I.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for the salaries and expenses of the House of Commons, including a grant in aid to the Kitchen Committee."

MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES.

2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £650, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for certain miscellaneous expenses, including certain grants in aid."

GOVERNMENT HOSPITALITY.

3. "That a sum, not exceeding £10,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for a grant in aid of the Government Hospitality Fund."

CLASS IV.

SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION, ETC.

4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £69,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for sundry grants in aid of scientific investigation, etc., and other grants."

CLASS II.

DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR SERVICES.

5. "That a Supplementary slim, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for the expenses in connection with His Majesty's Embassies, Missions and Consular Establishments Abroad, and other expenditure chargeable to the Consular Vote; certain special grants and payments, in, eluding grants in aid; and sundry other services."

CLASS IV.

PUBLIC EDUCATION, SCOTLAND.

6. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for public education in Scotland, for the Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh, including sundry grants in aid, and for grants to approved associations and other expenses in connection with youth welfare."

CLASS VI.

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.

7. "That a Supplementary sun), not exceeding £255,533, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and of the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, including grants and grants in aid and expenses in respect of agricultural education and research, eradication of diseases of animals, and improvement of breeding, etc., of live stock, land settlement, improvement of cultivation, drainage, etc., regulation of agricultural wages, agricultural credits, and marketing; fishery organisation, research and development, control of diseases of fish, etc.; and sundry other services including certain remanet subsidy payments."

UNCLASSIFIED SERVICES.

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (WAR SERVICES).

8. "That a Supplementary slim, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for the cost of the war services of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries."

MINISTRY OF AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION.

9. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Aircraft Production."

MINISTRY OF HEALTH (WAR SERVICES).

10. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for measures in England and Wales to deal with casualties and disease, for expenses connected with evacuation, for repair of war damage and for other services arising out of the war."

MINISTRY OF HOME SECURITY.

11. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Home Security."

MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

12. "That a Supplementary slim, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of Match, 1942, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Supply, including the expenses of the Royal Ordnance Factories."

MINISTRY OF WAR TRANSPORT.

13. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course


of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of War Transport."

Resolutions agreed to.

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ARMY LORRY ACCIDENT, ATHERTON.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. J. P. L. Thomas.]

Mr. Tinker: I want to raise a matter which I have raised before at Question Time concerning accidents in which the drivers of Army lorries are concerned. This is a matter that is common to all the Services, and I gather that the reply from the War Office will cover not only that Department, but the other Departments also. For the information of the House, I will relate what happened. On Sunday, 10th August, 1941, a woman driving her motor car at Atherton, in the Leigh constituency, was run down by an Army lorry driven by a soldier. The woman was injured, and her car was badly damaged, and naturally it was expected that, since the Government was concerned and since negligence was proved on the part of the driver of the Army lorry, there would be no difficulty in recovering what she was entitled to recover. A claim was sent to the War Office, which asked for all particulars, made a thorough examination of the whole business, and in a sense admitted that it was the fault of the Army driver. It was then said by the Department of the War Office concerned that there was some difficulty in regard to payment being made in this class of case, and that payment could not be made without the consent of some higher authorities. After a long wait, it was found out that it was a type of case that could not be recognised by the Army authorities because it happened that the driver concerned was not doing Army duty at the time of the accident, although he was in Army uniform and was driving an Army lorry and appeared to the casual observer to be under the control of the Army authorities. This case has gone on for some time. Eventually a letter was received from the Claims Commission of the War Department at Chester It stated:

I am in receipt of your letter dated the 28th November and very much regret the delay in arriving at a decision in this case. The delay does not arise out of my investigations into the circumstnaces of the accident itself, but on the question of whether the War Department can be advised to stand behind the War Department driver. A decision on this latter point will be made by higher authority and it is hoped that I shall be in a position to write to you more fully in a few weeks' time.

It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

Mr. Tinker: I then took the matter up with the War Office, and I received the following reply on 29th January:
Your letter of 16th January to Sir Edward Grigg referring to the cases of Mrs. Rowlands of Market Street, Atherton, has been passed to me as I deal with claims for injuries in which a War Department vehicle is involved. I have made inquiries, and find that after careful consideration it has been decided that the facts of the case do not bring it within the undertaking given in Parliament to which you refer and, therefore, the War Department cannot accept liability for the injuries susstained by Mrs. Rowlands. The undertaking given in Parliament was that the War Department would only stand behind its driver if, in similar circumstances, a private employer would have been liable for his servant. In the present case the War Department driver was using the vehicle for his own purposes at the time of the accident, and, therefore, the War Department cannot stand behind him.
This seemed very strange to us, and I decided the matter could not be left there, and that whatever the consequences the public should know the position. I decided to raise the matter in Parliament, and on 10th February I put down a Question. I receive a reply from the Joint Under-Secretary to the War Office in the following terms:
The policy with regard to the grant of compensation in such cases as this is as stated in the answers given to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall) on 22nd April 1941, and to my Noble Friend the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) on 24th June, 1941. It is not a policy peculiar to my Department but is common to all public Departments. The circumstances of the present case have received careful consideration, but I regret they are not such as would permit the grant of compensation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th February, 1942; col. 1371, Vol.:377.]
Perhaps the most vital point was contained in the reply to a Supplementary Question.


The principle adopted by all Government Departments is that in circumstances under which, if the Government had been a private employer, it would have been legally liable for the torts of the driver, compensation is considered. This is not a case in which a private employer would have been considered liable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th February, 1912; col. 1372, Vol. 377.]
As I have said, it seems to be a very strange position. May I put it in this way? Suppose a constituent of mine was run down by an Army lorry and the driver was proved negligent by everyone, the War Office would pay, but, if in similar circumstances the driver was not driving on Army business or was not taking the right route, the War Office would not pay. How can citizens understand the working of an Act which allows that kind of thing to happen? As I understand it, the Army authorities are under the protection of the Crown, and they cannot be sued. The Army authorities have recognised this and have agreed that they ought to pay something to a civilian who has been injured.

Mr. Silverman: If this had been the case of a private car, the driver would have been compelled by law to have a certificate of insurance, and the insurance policy would have covered him. Therefore, when in civil life an employer is not liable the injured party does not suffer because the driver is covered by insurance. In this case does my hon. Friend know how the soldier came to be driving an, Army vehicle uninsured?

Mr. Tinker: No, I cannot answer that point, but I am glad of the help given me, because I had not seen that way of looking at it. It seems to me now that a private driver must have a certificate to cover him, whereas, if he is taken over by the Army, he does not require one for the same purpose. It brings it more directly under the purview of a Government Department to see that where a civilian is injured by their people recompense ought to be made. It will probably be replied that that kind of thing may involve a private employer in the same difficulty, but it cannot do that, because in neither case can the Crown be sued, but in the first case the Crown takes on the liability. The Lord Chancellor's statement on the point is very interesting. In answer to a question, he said:
A member of the public injured by the negligent driving of a Service vehicle has the

right to sue the driver of the vehicle and to obtain judgment against him for damage that he has suffered, but he has no right of action against the Crown as in law the Crown is not liable for the torts of its servants. If, however, the driver of the Service vehicle was on duty at the time of the accident it is and has been for many years the invariable practice of a Government Department to provide the funds required to satisfy any verdict obtained against the driver. A person injured by the negligence of the driver of a Service vehicle is, therefore, in no worse position than if the accident had been caused by a non-official person, and may be in a better position by reason of the fact that the financial resources of the State are available.
The State has gone outside the law in saying in certain cases "We will meet the liability." How can you convince the citizen when in two identical cases of accidents one injured person can get compensation and, for some reason or another which is hard to explain, the other cannot? The State ought to do something to improve the position as we have it at the moment. It may be that I shall make no progress to-day. It is very seldom that you do on the Adjournment, except that you advertise a wrong and stir up public opinion. I have done this in order to draw the attention of the public to the position, in the hope that we may prevail upon the Government that the time has come to make some change in regard to these cases of injuries. In this case one has to ask how the driver was able to get hold of the Service vehicle. There was something lax to allow that to happen and for a man to be able to take a lorry from where it was parked and cause damage. In the interests of the War Office, I hope that the Financial Secretary will take the view of the case that I have put forward and not be bound by the other decision. I hope he will show that he is satisfied that there is a genuine case to answer and that he will put it to his chiefs, so that something can be done in the matter.

Mr. Silverman: I would like to urge my hon. Friend not to abandon his constituent's claim at this stage. I should have thought that the War Office had a good deal to prove before they made out a case for escaping liability even on the narrowest legalistic interpretation of the undertaking given. I hope that they will not take the narrowest legalistic interpretation. There is a tendency for them to do so. The standard of care of driving by Army


lorry drivers is, by comparison with ordinary commercial experience, very low indeed, and it is to no purpose for official spokesmen to say in the House, as they sometimes do, that they have analysed the number of cases and that only in an infinitesimal percentage has the driver been found to blame. That is so, but it is because the inquiry is held by the War Department themselves, and they have an interest in the result. The amount of interest they have in the result is shown in the case which my hon. Friend has brought forward. If they can establish in their own court of inquiry to their own satisfaction that there was no negligence on the part of their driver, they save so much money.
I would like the hon. Gentleman to say how it came about that this driver was in possession of an Army lorry on the public highway without official sanction and for other than official purposes. If the War Office say that in these cases they have no responsibility for what follows, they ought to be able to establish that they have no responsibility for what occurred. How does a driver get an Army lorry and drive it away for his own purposes? Can that be done without the express or tacit permission of some superior officer? If it can, can it be done without the negligence of some superior officer? Surely lorries are not lying about full of petrol, not immobilised, and with the ignition key or starting handle available to anybody. Could a member of the public go and drive a lorry away? Can I do so? Is it only a private soldier who can drive a lorry about the public highway without anybody being responsible for him and without anybody's permission? In practice that cannot happen unless either tacit or express consent has been given or there is such a degree of negligence as to imply in law consent for the driver to take it away.
If that is so, the undertaking has not been carried out, because in those circumstances a private employer would be liable, even though the vehicle were being driven for the servant's own purposes and not for the purposes of the employer, if it could be shown that the servant was driving the employer's vehicle with the employer's permission, the employer knowing that the man was uninsured. It seems to me that that is the closest parallel you have here. The War Office

stand as employer of the man who took the lorry, knowing that the driver was not covered by any policy of insurance. If they had been a civil employer, they would have been liable. In the circumstances, it seems to me that the constituent of my hon. Friend is entitled to reconsideration of his case.

Mr. David Adams: May I make an inquiry? In cases where legal liability is not admitted, is there not a Department which can make grants on compassionate and other grounds, in cases of hardship of this character? If that be so, it will be of some interest to the public to know it.

Mr. Riley: I hope that the Minister will not want to excuse the refusal of his Department to meet this claim on any legal ground, or to wriggle out of what everybody regards as a liability. After all, Parliament deliberately provided an Act under which it is obligatory upon the owner of every motor vehicle to be insured in order to provide for such a case as that re erred to by my hon. Friend. That was the deliberate intention of Parliament and of the Government of the day. There is a further point. Have the War Office a mutual arrangement with the principal insurance companies to meet liabilities of this kind? In that case all that the War Office have to do is to share the damages which might be regarded as due in this case. I hope that the Minister will not try to excuse the Department on the ground of some kind of legal point which is contrary to the spirit and intention of the Act.

The Financial Secretary, to the War Office (Mr. Sandys): I am not here to excuse the Department, as the hon. Gentleman has just suggested. As I have previously explained to the hon. Member who raised this matter, it is not within the province of the War Office to decide policy in cases of this kind. I suggested to him that he should rake this case at a more appropriate moment, but from his speech—and I sympathise with him—it appears that he wishes merely to take this opportunity to bring forward what he believes to be a wrong an I to draw attention to it. He has no doubt achieved that end. So far as the speech of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) is concerned, I would say straight


away that I agree as to the importance of raising to the utmost the standard of driving in the Services. It is, however, an extremely difficult problem to enlist very great numbers of men in a short time, train them, and put them on to the roads with large Service lorries, but the hon. Gentleman may be assured that very careful attention is being paid to this question of training drivers. It is one of our preoccupations at the present moment. With a mechanised Army the number of drivers needed is enormous.
I must, however, take exception to the remarks which the hon. Member made about the manner in which inquiries into accidents are conducted. The military authorities have no interest whatsoever in trying to show that negligence was not committed by an Army driver. After all, when the War Office pays out money in compensation, it does not come out of the soldiers' pockets, it comes out of the taxpayers' pockets, and the only concern of the military authorities is to do justice. It is a most unfair suggestion that the courts of inquiry held by the Army into accidents are biased or that they try to reach a decision in favour of the soldier and against the interests of the civilian victim of the accident.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Gentleman has accused me of being unfair, and I want to assure him that I have no intention of being unfair to anybody. It has, however, always been a principle of inquiries in this country that they should not be conducted exclusively by those people who have an interest, direct or indirect, in the result of the inquiry. That is the only point I wish to make.

Mr. Sandys: The hon. Member was referring to statistics given by the War Office on the subject of accidents. This is a perfectly proper matter for the War Office to inquire into itself. We cannot always have a Judge of the High Court sitting on every tribunal. Certain things must be left to the Departments concerned to investigate. The practice to which the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) has referred is one which is common to all Government Departments. Perhaps the action of the Army in this connection has received more attention than that of other Departments owing to the fact that it has so many vehicles on the road at the moment. The accident in question took place, as he said, at Atherton on 10th

August, 1941. An Army lorry was being driven by a soldier; it skidded and collided with a civilian private car which was damaged. The case was investigated by the military authorities who decided, after carefully considering the circumstances, that the journey was an unauthorised journey. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne asked how it came about that there could be such a thing as an unauthorised journey. In this particular case it appears that the driver started off on an authorised journey, and then, having completed the job, took the lorry on for his own purposes. There was therefore no question of any implied consent, as the hon. Member suggested. There was no implied approval. The fact that the soldier was in uniform, which was referred to by the hon. Member, has nothing to do with the question of responsibility. A civilian driver belonging to a big commercial firm might be wearing the firm's uniform but it would not necessarily imply that he was driving on their behalf. Having investigated this case the military authorities took disciplinary action with the result that the driver was awarded seven days' detention. A serious view was taken of this case as will be seen by the award. The owner of the car then claimed compensation for the damage to the car and loss of its use during the time it was under repair. He also alleged—though I am not quite sure whether he claimed compensation for it—that his wife had suffered shock as a result of the accident. This was referred to the Claims Commission, which rejected the claim, as the hon. Member has explained, on the ground that the journey was unauthorised and that the accident did not occur as a result of the discharge of his duty by the driver.
The practice followed by all Government Departments, not merely now but for many years past, is a perfectly straightforward one. I can well see that there is room for argument about this practice. On the other hand, I think it is not fair to suggest that Government Departments in any way seek to shelter behind the immunity of the Crown. Nor do I think it is right to say that any civilian is unfairly deprived of his right to compensation. I do feel that the analogy with the civilian driver is a solid and sound one. The civilian employer cannot be held responsible for injuries re-


sulting from the action of his employee, if that employee is not, at the time of the accident, discharging his duties in the service of his employer or driving with the consent, authority and knowledge of the employer. The army driver is in very much the same position. The Crown, it is true, cannot be sued for the torts of its servants. The old maxim that "the king can do no wrong" applies in this case. But in order that the person suffering from injury as a result of the action of a Crown servant shall not be unfairly prejudiced, the practice has been adopted by all Government Departments for many years past to stand behind their servants if, when the injury was committed, those servants were acting in the discharge of their duties, or their action resulted from some negligence or oversight on the part of some officer of the Crown whose duty it should have been to prevent the occurrence.
I would add two remarks. The point was raised by the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams) that in the case of special hardship—though I do not think that the case under discussion really comes within that category—even though the accident has not resulted from the man's performance of his official duty,

none the less the Claims Commission can consider granting compensation. In this manner, in cases of special hardship, and they occur not infrequently, grants of compensation are made. In addition, the War Office are well aware of the need to tighten up discipline. In the Army we have been seeking to achieve this in a number of ways. Further steps have been taken very recently in order to try and reduce the number of unauthorised journeys which are carried out by Army drivers in spite of regulations. I have explained to the House as best I can the law and the practice. My hon. Friend will, I hope, agree that the Government is not trying to shelter behind any legalistic immunity. I think the Lord Chancellor was very fair when he said in that quotation which the hon. Member read to the House:
The person injured by the negligence of the driver of a Service vehicle is therefore in no worse position than if the injury were caused by a non-official person and may be in a better position by reason of the fact that the financial resources of the State are made available to meet his claim.

It being the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, Mr. DEPUTYSPEAKER Adjourned the House without Question put.